I think the Dems plan on taking more seats in the next election but I do agree with you on the last point.
Good thing he relies on U of C economists then, right? You have no idea how close things came a few weeks ago. Most of the public doesn't...so how is that fear mongering if they keep private just how bad it got and would have been if the Fed hadn't stepped in?
Sorry - you didn't use "big". But you did say it was a bailout. Out of curiousity, exactly who do you believe was being bailed out? And how much do you think the government spent on bailing them out?
You realize that Bear Stearns was brought down by fear-mongering, right? Runs on banks have happened multiple times in our history. Of course no one knows what would have happened. But if you did have a run, you'd have a complete financial meltdown. Was is it worth the risk to you? Funny, given that it was the Bush Administration and the Fed that took emergency action to prevent the dominoes from toppling.
Many of us know exactly what he's proposing, given that he has very detailed economic plans. You might not, but don't put that on everyone else. I thought you told us yesterday that Obama wants to raise taxes in a recession? If you have no idea what he's proposing, where did you get that from? Never mind the fact that it's not true - are you just making stuff up now? Or do you actually have some idea of what he's proposing and your most recent quote is not true?
Even assuming you're correct, the earliest that could happen is for 2010. So are you claiming we're going to be in recession through then?
Actually, this may be overstating it a bit. I should have said we know as much (or more) about what he's proposing as we do the other candidates and what we have historically gotten from Presidential candidates. Many specifics are almost always worked out and changed when its time to actually draft legislation.
I think we will be in a recession through mid 2009. I think that raising taxes in 2010 may r****d the recovery and slow economic expansion.
2 things. 1. Suffering isn't a prerequisite for the job. 2. You don't know what he went through, and whether he suffered or not. Obama got into Harvard because he worked his way in. He wasn't a legacy, or someone who had big time connections to get in, and was able to use those connections to go to the right prep schools etc. You can hold it against him, that he worked to be part of Harvard Law if you want to, but it doesn't make sense to me. It's interesting that turning down a wall street job in order to community work is minus for you. It's also interesting that the reason was a minus is that as a politician he won't work for business. I and I would be willing to bet most other people in this nation would rather have our leaders work for people rather than for business. But again, there are far more powerful political connections to be made through wall street investment banks, and firms than there are doing community work. So the argument that he did that to be a politician is just plain silly. The idea that a politician should work for business rather than people is one that will put you on the losing end of almost any election.
Certainly possible - but most projections right now are that we bottom later this quarter and the recovery starts in the latter half of this year. I would think if those projections change (which is very possible), the Presidential candidates would all have the sense to change their plans. When a candidate talks about lowering or raising a tax rate, they are generally talking about what it should ideally be in the long-term. How and when that gets implemented would depend on economic conditions.
Watching ROCKET RICH NYC post in the D&D is now giving me as many laughs as watching T_J, texxx, and basso post. Thanks for making my belly ache!
Its true I am a Clinton supporter, Deckard can speak for himself, and Roxran gives me more credit than I probably deserve. As a Clinton supporter I might on a small level enjoy taking down Obama a notch but I do feel compelled to point out weaknesses in Obama in to make the case for my candidate. That is essentially though what I said so you, B-bob, would then also acknowledge that this is a mistake. In general I would agree that it is foolish for us to continualy scour and parse the candidates' statements for every sign of weakness and then magnify that and that our politics would be better served by more substantial debates on issues but unfortunately that is the way politics are played now and things aren't going to change any time soon. I will also say, and feel free to accuse me of trying to take Obama down a notch, that the Obama campaign and their supporters are far from immune from this and much of the campaign against Clinton is about scouring and parsing her statements rather than addressing her on the issues or their records as senators or political experience. To toot my own horn I posted a thread regarding an analysis on their legislative records in the US Senate that got relatively little comment compared to fairly voluminous threads regarding whether Clinton is a serial liar, Obama a racist and McCain an idiot. So even the political minds of CF.net aren't immune to such concerns either.
Obama was just born a natural leader right? Leaders aren't born. It takes experience to make a leader. Doing public service makes you a POLITICIAN - the very thing he CLAIMS he is not. He claims he wants to change Washington Politics but look at his actions now. He's just like all the rest. I'd rather have someone like Bloomberg over Obama any day.
I never said it was. All I said from the beginning was that he lived a privledged life and was brought up in the best school in Hawaii. It was Sam Fisher that was trying to paint his life as STRUGGLING saying..."And he was, by all accounts, the least well-off person there. What is your point? Oh you have none" That turned into a whole argument about how he suffered when he clearly didn't grow up POOR which was my point! He went to the best schools, he was given every opportunity to do well. It was all you Obama lovers that came to his rescue to paint him as this poor man who grew up on the southside of Chicago(which he didn't). He was called BARRY for crying out loud growing up in Hawaii. So my point was that he lived a good life. You all came down and made this into a discussion about SUFFERING. Then...someone attacked me asking if I knew what it's like to not have a dad at 2? Yes I do. Back to my first point....OBAMA WAS NEVER POOR!
You are wrong, and seem to be making up Obama positions left and right. Obama didn't claim to have suffered any more than anyone else. Obama never claimed he wasn't a politician. I have no idea where you are getting your misinformation from. But his campaign is different. It has been run with a very stark change from other campaigns before, and Hillary's campaign now. I'm looking at his actions now, and they are a huge improvement over the way politics has been for about the last decade or more. Furthermore doing community service especially when you do it at the expense of personal wealth, and greater political connections doesn't make someone a bad guy.
But how he got his position in public service speaks volumes about who he is, what he's about, and what he really thinks about "white people". His condescending comments is who he is. This wasn't a slip of the tongue.
I didn't say he said he suffered more than anyone else. It was Sam Fisher and the rest of you Obama people that brought that up. All I said he never grew up POOR!
Obama's campaign reminds me of Jimmy Carter in 1976. An inspirational “feel-good” Democrat ran against the corruption of the previous 8 years (even though Ford was prez; Carter campaigned against Nixon), and people didn’t want to ask tough questions. They just wanted hope. They just wanted an end to corruption, as well as the hangover from Vietnam. Unfortunately Carter had neither the oratorical ability to go over Congress and Washington special interests heads to appeal to the American people post inaguration, nor did he have any semblance of an intuitive sense (or cared to) on how Washington REALLY works. Thus his essentially good policies (on the engineer’s drawing board that is) were render moot by nonsensical seat-of-the pants implementation devoid of political strategy and reality. So here we are in 2008, Obama running on an inspirational "Uniting", "Change", "Hope" for America. And just like in 1976, even though Obama will be running againts McCain he's really running against George W. Bush. Obama just like Carter don't care how Washington works. People just want the Iraq war to end and the corruption to stop just like in 1976. We have Carter part 2 coming up with President Obama.