If the election was held today

[KLHJ2]

I will keep this short and sweet.

If I still believed that our role and involvement in Iraq was necessary and we needed a strong Commander in Chief then I would be voting for McCain.

Right now America is in more debt that it ever has been, the value of the dollar is down, and the economy sucks (not to mention the value of my mutual funds). I am voting for Obama to get us out of this mess.

Fact: according to Ali Velshi of CNN "The economy is the strongest with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress"

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Angry

I will keep this short and sweet.

If I still believed that our role and involvement in Iraq was necessary and we needed a strong Commander in Chief then I would be voting for McCain.

Right now America is in more debt that it ever has been, the value of the dollar is down, and the economy sucks (not to mention the value of my mutual funds). I am voting for Obama to get us out of this mess.

Fact: according to Ali Velshi of CNN "The economy is the strongest with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress"

But we're likely to have a Democratic congress, no? So should we then have a Republican President?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But we're likely to have a Democratic congress, no? So should we then have a Republican President?

Statistically a Dem pres is always best for the economy. I just threw that out ther so that you guys know what to do during the elections 2 years from now, (Put some Reps. in Congress!) But you are correct in your thinking. You want a Dem Congress if you have a Rep President.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Angry

Statistically a Dem pres is always best for the economy. I just threw that out ther so that you guys know what to do during the elections 2 years from now, (Put some Reps. in Congress!) But you are correct in your thinking. You want a Dem Congress if you have a Rep President.

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.

[BDBohnzie]

Surprised no one has pulled this out yet...


I'm undecided at this point, leaning towards Obama. Even with the banter strewn across the Parking Lot, I really haven't done much research. But it's hard to, being a Registered Republican in a state that is dominated by 2 counties and a independent city. I'll get around to it and make an educated choice. But until then, it'll be swell watching the smear ads, and hearing one call the other a snake in the grass, or whatever banter they throw around.

[saden1]

Let's do France then. BTW the British PM sorta endorsed Obama.

[MTK]

I hope Bill is right:

The Associated Press: Bill Clinton predicts Obama will win 'handily'

[12thMan]

Barack H. Obama

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Barack H. Obama

Hey so if he wins

A) Will you be joining his administration full time
B) Can you get him to do a chat with us
C) Should we start addressing you as Secretary of 12thMan

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Hey so if he wins

A) Will you be joining his administration full time
B) Can you get him to do a chat with us
C) Should we start addressing you as Secretary of 12thMan

A) Is well underway. Hours suck though.
B) Obama is really a closet Redskins fan. He especially envies Clinton Portis' cool pressers. So a Warpath chat is likely
C) Naw, you guys can keep calling me 12th. Everybody except 70Chip, of course.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

A) Is well underway. Hours suck though.
B) Obama is really a closet Redskins fan. He especially envies Clinton Portis' cool pressers. So a Warpath chat is likely
C) Naw, you guys can keep calling me 12th. Everybody except 70Chip, of course.

What do I call you?

[BleedBurgundy]

I think the real question is whether or not all of the Obama supporters actually turn up to vote. I have this idea of all of these college kids being all psyched for Obama and none of them actually putting down the joint long enough to hit the polls. Obama's supporters seem to be a louder, more fervent sort but I'm not sure that is going to translate into a victory. It will definitely be interesting...




EDIT- no insult to Obama supporters, just dealing in stereotypes to make a point. I think if any politician is counting on a "youth movement" to get them elected, they're grasping at straws in this country.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I think the real question is whether or not all of the Obama supporters actually turn up to vote. I have this idea of all of these college kids being all psyched for Obama and none of them actually putting down the joint long enough to hit the polls. Obama's supporters seem to be a louder, more fervent sort but I'm not sure that is going to translate into a victory. It will definitely be interesting...




EDIT- no insult to Obama supporters, just dealing in stereotypes to make a point. I think if any politician is counting on a "youth movement" to get them elected, they're grasping at straws in this country.

It's a good question and I really hope that young voters get out there and vote. Clinton the first time around did a great job at capturing the young vote and it paid off at the polls. I see a lot of similarities between '92 and today.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's a good question and I really hope that young voters get out there and vote. Clinton the first time around did a great job at capturing the young vote and it paid off at the polls. I see a lot of similarities between '92 and today.

I heard this on Fox radio yesterday, don't remember the source. Of new voters, those registered within the last 2 years were split 47% Obama / 44% McCain. I would've expected a bigger advantage to Obama here. Normally new voters are younger and lean more Dem. (They usually wisen up once they get decent paying jobs and look at their taxes)