Obama or McCain!!!

[Barney Stinson]

YouTube - John McCain: Economic Disaster

I hate shit like that. All it is is a buncha chopped up clips that makes him look a lot stupider than he is. If you get your information from shit like this, you shouldn't ever vote.

 

[Jim Morrison]

obama is a nigga he feels the pain of the average niggas around the world

 

[Sogeking]

...because you smoke mj?

 

[Lizardbreath]

Well considering that McCain has always been rich there is no way he can know what it's like to be poor. Obama on the other hand came from the bottom up so he at least can relate more to our day to day issues with money and all.

 

[Tipsy]

Well considering that McCain has always been rich there is no way he can know what it's like to be poor. Obama on the other hand came from the bottom up so he at least can relate more to our day to day issues with money and all.

How does just being rich or poor allow one to better run a national economy? It's like saying, well McCain and Obama are both going to fuck us over, but Obama will empathize with us as we're getting fucked. Obama may be good with the whole hope and empathy thing, but I'm more concerned with not getting fucked over regardless of how sad they are it is happening to our economy.

 

[Jim Morrison]

In all seriousness, i DO NOT want mccain to win. Id much rather have obama, at least with him there is going to be change, im not trying to have 8 years of basically another bush.

 

[CelestialBadger]

how bout them vp debates? funny shit amirite?



IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Senator McCain's comments about health care?

PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases.

BIDEN: Oh you sly bitch

 

[Master.America]

I'll tell you what I like about McCain: his stance on energy and the fact that he supports removing the state boundaries for health care. Here's why I won't vote for him:

1) He will push deregulation, even when it is needed most to control the economic crisis
2) He's another liberal Republican like Bush: he'll keep taxes low to get votes because he knows the generation after his (that's us) will have to carry the burden of debt
3) If he dies (and he likely will, with his health and considering the stress that the office of President can cause), Palin will be president

And finally, the thought of him being president that really scares me:

4) He's hot-headed and makes decisions on whims and intuition.

McCain's experience, which he carries on high as his crowning achievement and that which makes him more qualified than Obama to be president, is in part what would drive him to make hasty and risky decisions that could get us into a lot of trouble--something I'd see as a threat to national security. He has the experience, so he can make decisions--that's how Republicans tell it to me, and that's how he'll do it. Someone who recognizes that he has to learn first would be more likely to think before he leaps, a quality which is always desirable in a leader.

Those are the deciding factors for me, though there are many aspects of the Republican way of doing things that I am not particularly fond of. For example, I support both gay rights and women's rights, which I would be virtually voting against by voting for McCain and the Republican party.

One more thing to note: typically, democratic fiscal policies are undesirable in recessionary times, but McCain's policies seem as though they would be even more liberal than Bush's, but with more tax cuts. Either candidate, if elected, will end up either driving us endlessly into debt or raising taxes. I find it hard to weigh them here and would love to hear others' comments regarding this issue.

 

[Tipsy]

1) He will push deregulation, even when it is needed most to control the economic crisis

McCain's an idiot, but I'd like to know something - why is the regulation needed?

 

[Master.America]

McCain's an idiot, but I'd like to know something - why is the regulation needed?

Regulation could have kept us from getting the economic trough we're doomed to face right now. Regulation (you know, the stuff government is supposed to do--that's why it's called government in the first place; it's supposed to govern) could have enforced laws and rules in the credit industry. Junk bonds fixed-rate mortgages, and other high-risk loans and such taken advantage of by these banks and credit corporations are what started this mess, and they should have been recognized as dangerous to begin with.

Regulation is needed because capitalism can't get too far without getting in its own way; in the end, it's just as destructive as communism. Like everything else in life, what's needed is a happy medium between two extremes. On the federal level, at least. The government should have the power to intervene in private affairs before it costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I'm not even a huge fan of Obama but I am OVERJOYED that he managed to keep Hillary Clinton out of the white house. I liked Bill Clinton, but Hillary would make a terrible president. She's very partisan, stubborn, and even when faced with facts (ex: suspending the gas tax) doesn't budge at all.

At least Obama and McCain have a bipartisan agenda for the most part.

The thing that brings me more to obama however is that he wants us out of Iraq and eventually afghanistan. If there is anything that is more crippling to our economy it's a 100+ billion dollar war that is being funded by record defecits.

If McCain wins I will be okay...however I am DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT PALIN. This women has not a brain cell in her head.

 

[Tipsy]

Junk bonds fixed-rate mortgages, and other high-risk loans and such taken advantage of by these banks and credit corporations are what started this mess, and they should have been recognized as dangerous to begin with.

Which were offered because there was a demand for them; there was a demand for them because residential investment was raised; residential investment was raised because the fed lowered interest rates to record lows near the end of Greenspan's term (lowering interest rates is used as a tool to spur economic growth through adding an incentive to invest - the type of investment that responds to this is residential investment). Too much government (actions of the fed) needs to be recognized as dangerous to begin with.

The government should have the power to intervene in private affairs before it costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

The government intervention tends to be what causes it.

in the end, it's just as destructive as communism.

What?

 

[Master.America]

Which were offered because there was a demand for them; there was a demand for them because residential investment was raised; residential investment was raised because the fed lowered interest rates to record lows near the end of Greenspan's term (lowering interest rates is used as a tool to spur economic growth through adding an incentive to invest - the type of investment that responds to this is residential investment). Too much government (actions of the fed) needs to be recognized as dangerous to begin with.

I'm talking about the government, not the fed.

The government intervention tends to be what causes it.

Don't get cause mixed up with effect. It's because things got out of control that the government was forced to step in in these situations. Had it not taken over those banks (or AIG, at least), we'd be much worse off right now.

What?

I'll clarify: Pure Capitalism, in the end, would result with little more success than Communism. Both are extremes, and neither is ideal.

In any case, a broad discussion of federal economic policy is best reserved for another thread. As I said before, now's not the time for the government to be spending money unscrupulously anyway.

One topic I forgot to mention that's big in my book: education. I was terribly disappointed to hear that both candidates would support "fixing" the No Child Left Behind act. It has done nothing but limit public schools, and the problem involves much more than a lack of funding, which is the only thing either candidate seems interested in addressing regarding the act.

 

[Tipsy]

I'm talking about the government, not the fed.

Are you suggesting the Federal Reserve System is not a political body, not created by the government, does not have people appointed by the president, and doesn't deal with a power granted by the Constitution to Congress?

Don't get cause mixed up with effect. It's because things got out of control that the government was forced to step in in these situations. Had it not taken over those banks (or AIG, at least), we'd be much worse off right now.

Cause = fed lowers interest rates -> cause rise in residential investment -> created housing bubble

I'll clarify: Pure Capitalism, in the end, would result with little more success than Communism. Both are extremes, and neither is ideal.

Define pure capitalism.

In any case, a broad discussion of federal economic policy is best reserved for another thread. As I said before, now's not the time for the government to be spending money unscrupulously anyway.

You're the one that brought up regulation. I would agree that it's "not the time for the government to be spending money unscrupulously", however I'd also argue it's not time for the government to regulate to cause restriction to markets (there's a reason why big business loves regulation; it guarantees their security - makes it harder for new businesses to enter the market and if anything goes wrong the government feels compelled to save them because they only acted in line with the regulation) and a misallocation of capital.

 

[Lizardbreath]

The ultimate fix to the federal reserve is to freeze the fed rate and allow the market to adjust accordingly.

 

[CelestialBadger]

tipsy do you believe in a totally free market...? just curious

 

[Tipsy]

tipsy do you believe in a totally free market...? just curious

Nope - there are certain very necessary roles for government to play, IMO. (property rights, rule of law, gdp/price stability, supplying and supporting a currency, social safety net, etc)

 

[Master.America]

Nope - there are certain very necessary roles for government to play, IMO. (property rights, rule of law, gdp/price stability, supplying and supporting a currency, social safety net, etc)

Well said. However, I believe the government should also take a more active role in the economy than simply keeping prices stable and supporting a currency.

 

[ChrisH36]

I hate shit like that. All it is is a buncha chopped up clips that makes him look a lot stupider than he is. If you get your information from shit like this, you shouldn't ever vote.

Well, he THOUGHT it was all OK. Until he realized how wrong he was when the glove known as "reality" smacked him in the face. However, I honestly believed that Obama would have came out on top - because a lot of people get the notion now that Republican = Bush politics.

But similar on a similar topic, that's why mudslinging is a retarded approach to politics. There are people that are going to believe this garbage, and they don't exactly outline every single bad property the Political leader has.

IT happened in Canada with Stephen Harper and the Liberals protraying him. They made Harper look like an idiot, but Dion's policies had quite a number of flaws, and were extremely costy (especially during the economic crisis). Hell, Dion couldn't even debate properly in the Political Leader debate - mainly because he wasn't that bright and had bad English speaking skills (PMs are required to know the 2 main languages of Canada).

The result for Dion: He ended up losing 20% of the seats in the House of Commons, mostly to Harper and Layton. He stepped down as Liberal leader 2 days later.

Hell, Harper was criticized for not being able to handle the economic crisis. But the moment he got re-elected, he called forth a plan right off the bat - and is currently sorting out a budget. He did however, as McCain said - thought the economy was strong and wasn't much of a problem.

In America, it's the same thing. One can't accept the other, and often the mudslinging gets so bad, it actually covers the incompetence of the person who released it. As you put it Mike, it's often better to not vote, or just vote for who you believe will offer you the most benefits (if they actually do them that is).

 

[Renzokuken]

In Australia it's illegal for you to not vote (If you're registered, and you have to be registered by 21). If you don't like the main parties you just donkey vote a terrible one (Fishing party lol).