RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on economic issues?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 11:55:06 AM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 194
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric365
I didn't mean we should become socialists but capitialism should be regulated were abuse is obvious
We agree. Capitalism cannot exist in its purest form because there is sin in the world. It's great we live in a free country so that how much it's regulated can be part of the public debate.
Should the government protect private individuals and corporations from suffering the full loss of their poor decision?
Should there be any government regulation of private enterprise.?
Conservatives, for the last thirty years anyway, always answered both of these with an emphatic 'NO'. So, I am having a hard time understanding the sudden and complete conversion that conservatives , including the Bush administration, have gone through this week. I just don't know what to make of it, or know what to expect going forward.
Are we going to honestly admit our error of allowing totally free markets in areas which we rely for the public good? As conservatives, are you willing to regulate the industries (banking, investment companies, insurance companies, money-market funds) that the public is going to bail-ouit? Or, is the goal just to hand these businesses and investors a wad of cash and walk away? Like most people, I'm at a total loss as to what's happenening, and whqat's going to happen from here, and what the intention is. Conservatives argued loudly against the taxpayers paying for the poor decisions of homowners who bought houses in risky markets, or with risky mortgages. I don't know what to think when the same folks are, in the matter of a week, thinking that the taxpayers should at least partially reimburse the issuers of those financial instruments for the poor decision they made.
Not that we may have any choice, but I want to make sure this doesn't happen again. Or worse, we hand the banks and foreign investors $700Billion charged to the US credit card, and go back to business as usual.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 11:58:12 AM
|
|
|
LivingParadox
Posts: 819
Joined: 2/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Capitalism is still the best economic system available but there has always go to be those who are the "gatekeepers" to keep out the criminal element from the system. When the system gets out of kilter time for REFORM.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 12:48:43 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
Conservatives, for the last thirty years anyway, always answered both of these with an emphatic 'NO'. So, I am having a hard time understanding the sudden and complete conversion that conservatives , including the Bush administration, have gone through this week. I just don't know what to make of it, or know what to expect going forward.
Are we going to honestly admit our error of allowing totally free markets in areas which we rely for the public good? As conservatives, are you willing to regulate the industries (banking, investment companies, insurance companies, money-market funds) that the public is going to bail-ouit? Or, is the goal just to hand these businesses and investors a wad of cash and walk away? Like most people, I'm at a total loss as to what's happenening, and whqat's going to happen from here, and what the intention is. Conservatives argued loudly against the taxpayers paying for the poor decisions of homowners who bought houses in risky markets, or with risky mortgages. I don't know what to think when the same folks are, in the matter of a week, thinking that the taxpayers should at least partially reimburse the issuers of those financial instruments for the poor decision they made.
Not that we may have any choice, but I want to make sure this doesn't happen again. Or worse, we hand the banks and foreign investors $700Billion charged to the US credit card, and go back to business as usual.
I think your hatred of conservatives is blinding you in this crisis.
First of all, the actions of the government this week is BI-PARTISAN! READ THE NEWS!
Secondly, I don't think you really understand the consequences of doing nothing.
There is no doubt that the real causes of this needs to be investigated. The answer is not simply "poor management" becasue there was recent legislation which led to the mortgage crisis. Legislation which both political parties are responsible for.
The fact is that the economy runs on credit. No business and no employer would not be hurt by a failure in the financial markets. This means average working people and poor people would suffer the worst if the government did nothing. Is that what you want?
Honestly, the class warfare and hatred needs to end because the folks who will hurt the most are the ones least able to handle it. The government did the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 12:56:47 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
I think your hatred of conservatives is blinding you in this crisis.
It's not a hatred of conservatives. I've been conservative my entire life; most of my family and friends are conservative. I don't hate conservatives, but I think anayi is spot on. The reason that conservatives deserve more criticism in this regard is because "Free markets," "small government," "capitalism," "less regulation," "less government interference," etc has been the conservative mantra for as long as I can remember - that has not been the case w/ the Democrats. But the events of the last few weeks have shown how dangerous it is to go too far in that direction.
I'm not saying that both parties didn't have a hand in causing this or in taking steps to correct it. But it hasn't been the Democrats for the last 20 years shouting about deregulation.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 1:02:50 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1762
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
The reason that conservatives deserve more criticism in this regard is because "Free markets," "small government," "capitalism," "less regulation," "less government interference," etc has been the conservative mantra for as long as I can remember - that has not been the case w/ the Democrats. But the events of the last few weeks have shown how dangerous it is to go too far in that direction.
How in the world does it show that? The events of the past few weeks (months) have come about because the Legislature enacted measures that encouraged, and in some cases, required lending agencies to give mortgages to people who were a bad risk and then to give them risky terms on top of it. These were policies enacted under Clinton that have come back to bite us. "Less government interference" didn't get us into this mess! And if Bush deserves blame it's for allowing MORE government interference instead of reigning in the mess he inherited from Clinton, he made it worse. You can't criticise Bush for being too economically conservative! That makes about as much sense as criticizing McCain for being too much like Bush - nothing could be further from the truth.
Companies may have been greedy for profit but politicians were greedy for votes and consumers were greedy for more credit - to get what they think they "deserve" in our borderline, increasingly socialist society.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 1:10:06 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: csl7037
Companies may have been greedy for profit but politicians were greedy for votes and consumers were greedy for more credit - to get what they think they "deserve" in our borderline, increasingly socialist society.
No truer statement was ever said in these forums.
Here is a little recent history if anyone cares to remember:
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
Wikipedia
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 2:52:07 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2915
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric365
I didn't mean we should become socialists but capitialism should be regulated were abuse is obvious
We agree. Capitalism cannot exist in its purest form because there is sin in the world. It's great we live in a free country so that how much it's regulated can be part of the public debate.
I think the imperfection of information and perception are two of the biggest reasons pure capitalism can't possibly work. People simply cannot be exposed to and understand all the information necessary to make an informed decision about many, many things. There is a paucity of time and attention on the part of individuals, and putting under-informed individuals with not a lot of free time into groups isn't going to necessarily make things any better.
With freedom comes responsibility.
Your description of the "people" seems rather condescending. I hope I'm wrong in my inference.
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 3:01:52 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2915
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric365
I didn't mean we should become socialists but capitialism should be regulated were abuse is obvious
We agree. Capitalism cannot exist in its purest form because there is sin in the world. It's great we live in a free country so that how much it's regulated can be part of the public debate.
Should the government protect private individuals and corporations from suffering the full loss of their poor decision?
Should there be any government regulation of private enterprise.?
There should be some regulation but how much is actually the issue. I tend toward a more libertarian view, but to be purely libertarian, which adopts a completely hands off (laissez faire) approach to the economy? No, that's not feasible. History bears that out. But oversight is one thing and running the thang is another.
quote:
Conservatives, for the last thirty years anyway, always answered both of these with an emphatic 'NO'. So, I am having a hard time understanding the sudden and complete conversion that conservatives , including the Bush administration, have gone through this week. I just don't know what to make of it, or know what to expect going forward.
I'm a 'conservative' and have known lots of conservatives over my last 50 years, and what you're talking about is 'libertarian' and not necessarily 'conservative'. Granted, those terms, just like the term 'liberal,' are somewhat relative. But it's been my experience that 'conservatives' do not think as you've described, which is tantamount to anarchy.
quote:
Are we going to honestly admit our error of allowing totally free markets in areas which we rely for the public good? As conservatives, are you willing to regulate the industries (banking, investment companies, insurance companies, money-market funds) that the public is going to bail-ouit? Or, is the goal just to hand these businesses and investors a wad of cash and walk away? Like most people, I'm at a total loss as to what's happenening, and whqat's going to happen from here, and what the intention is. Conservatives argued loudly against the taxpayers paying for the poor decisions of homowners who bought houses in risky markets, or with risky mortgages. I don't know what to think when the same folks are, in the matter of a week, thinking that the taxpayers should at least partially reimburse the issuers of those financial instruments for the poor decision they made.
Not that we may have any choice, but I want to make sure this doesn't happen again. Or worse, we hand the banks and foreign investors $700Billion charged to the US credit card, and go back to business as usual.
I have no idea where you're getting your characterization of 'conservatives,' but it does not square with what I've read extensively about and experienced in the last 50 years. I do agree that Bush and company are much more into big government than most conservatives I know. In fact, that makes him, er, not a conservative IMO -- at least far from a fiscal conservative. This is an old 'plaint of mine about Bush. His papa was the same way.
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 5:21:41 PM
|
|
|
cinnken
Posts: 8
Joined: 2/28/2008
From: Redmond, WA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Which party has been in office for the last 8 years is somewhat irrelevant in this presidential race.
McCain is so different than Bush, Oh, yes it does, and oh, no he's not! This is the man who is on video stating that he voted "with Bush" over 90% of the time. Give me a break. He's Bush III.
quote:
He is being flexed and manipulated by his handlers - Unlike McCain, who has 7 lobbyists running his campaign? Seriously, who do you think is going to be running the government if he gets elected? Here's a clue....it WON'T be McCain.
Relay, why are you so bitter?
Do you work/volunteer for the Obama campaign?
You repeat Obama's talking points. The "he voted 90% of the time with Bush" rings well with those that loath Bush, but is the statement factual? How do you know? Perhaps taking a look at the times he opposed Bush would be in order. That would be an excellent way to get a clearer picture of their differences. In fact, the statement is most likely misleading because the majority of the votes aligned with Bush referred to the war on terror (duh). They are really, really, really different except in the area of strong defense, keeping our country safe, sovereign, etc. By the way, when they never vote with Bush, NOTHING ever gets done! Pick your battles.
As far as Obama, isn't it laughable that he chose Biden as his running mate? He is one of the most contentious, angry, partisan senators I have ever seen. Just the mention of his name makes me cringe. Remember the Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings? Wow!
As a Christian, I could not vote for Obama/his ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 5:37:24 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1269
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Your description of the "people" seems rather condescending. I hope I'm wrong in my inference.
He must have read Wizards First Rule: "People are stupid"
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:15:21 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 70
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
quote:
Which party has been in office for the last 8 years is somewhat irrelevant in this presidential race.
McCain is so different than Bush, Oh, yes it does, and oh, no he's not! This is the man who is on video stating that he voted "with Bush" over 90% of the time. Give me a break. He's Bush III.
As Cinn pointed out, much of that 90% is related to Iraq I'm sure. Libs should be thanking God in this election because they got one of the most liberal Republicans we could've given them which is one reason why Republicans weren't too excited about McCain until he chose Palin. He gave us the "gang of 14" after all. Besides EVERYONE knows you play up the 90% to the Bush supporters and play up the 10% to those who oppose him, that's politics. At least McCain did more than vote "present" all the time and hasn't spent the bulk of his time as senator running for President. The dirty little secret is you guys take this supposed "Bush hatred" out of context. While it's true that Bush is less popular now than in his first term, he still polls 2-3x HIGHER than the Democrat controlled Congress! Also, I think his weak stance on immigration has really hurt him with average Americans as it has with me. Why these guys (politicians in general) pander to a bunch of people who SHOULDN'T even be able to vote (legally) anyway is beyond me.
Besides, I still think Bush III is still better than Manchurian I.
quote:
quote:
He is being flexed and manipulated by his handlers - Unlike McCain, who has 7 lobbyists running his campaign? Seriously, who do you think is going to be running the government if he gets elected? Here's a clue....it WON'T be McCain.
As if Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists! THEY ALL DO! IT'S POLITICS! And the fact that so many of you only pay attention during elections requires them to raise large sums of money to run expensive campaigns.
And as stated above, I believe Obama to be a Manchurian candidate who, without a teleprompter, is a babbling idiot with no real ideas of his own. Or at least, none that he is confident enough to share with the rest of us. [paraphrased] "When a child is taken to a health care center, to get some health care" (as opposed to buying a candy bar I guess  ) "If that child needs a breathalyzer... [corrects himself saying] ... an 'inhilator' " (don't even know how to spell that since what he REALLY meant to say was "INHALER", and much is made about Bush's mispeaks and such words as "nucular")
quote:
quote:
It's unbelievably drastic to consider disposing of capitalism in favor of socialism. Gross exaggeration. No one is doing this. Not McCain, Not Obama, NO ONE.
Maybe not in ONE fell swoop, but certainly incrimentally yes! Socialized medicine, "windfall oil profits tax", "fairness doctrine", etc. all aimed at putting PRIVATE INDUSTRIES under GOVERNMENT CONTROL! If liberals had their way, we'd be "socialist" already if not for that nagging thing called a "Constitution".
Government motto: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is".
I like McCain's viewpoint on government that it should be "on our side, not in our way".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:16:55 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1286
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
The "he voted 90% of the time with Bush" rings well with those that loath Bush, but is the statement factual? Well, I heard him say it myself, and anyone who voted 90% of the time with Bush does not need to be elected. I'm not bitter. I just don't like Bush, never have, and I don't want more of the same, which is pretty much what I think McCain will be.
quote:
Bush's mispeaks and such words as "nucular") It would be so nice to have a president that could pronounce the word properly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:19:35 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2915
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
What was it about Bush that you didn't like from the start?
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:21:55 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1762
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cinnken
Unlike McCain, who has 7 lobbyists running his campaign? Seriously, who do you think is going to be running the government if he gets elected? Here's a clue....it WON'T be McCain.
This talking point is driving me crazy. Adopting this one shows absolutely no understanding at all of who lobbyists are or what they do. Just because someone represents a company or organization's interests in the hall of Congress, or registers as a lobbyists doesn't prove they're exerting pressure or contributing inappropriately to campaigns. They operate within a system created by the bozos we elect. Some may walk a fine line but the vast majority are just doing a job. There are all types of lobbyists on all types of issues. Some have a completely different job and had to register as a lobbyist because their company or organization sends them periodically to meet with certain members on legislation relative to their industry. Some are contract lobbyists who may even represent competing interests from time to time. Because a person is a lobbyists really doesn't tell you anything at all about that person or even their job or their political interests or clientele. Lobbyists are a fact of life, a necessary one in fact, and are not inherantly bad or good.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:23:24 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1286
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
What was it about Bush that you didn't like from the start? He's a little rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth that wouldn't know-- or care-- what the middle class wants or needs if we hit him over the head with it. That and his STUPID snide smile. And he hasn't disappointed me, LOL. The man doesn't have a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:24:07 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 70
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Whereas socialism is putting the hungry lions in charge over everyone. If I had to choose between the two, I'll take capitalism -- barbaric as it can be at times. I would much rather the dollar decide things than a very small group of people making decisions about what's good for the rest of us. At least with our current system (sick as it is) we still have some voice. With socialism we would have less of a voice.
Not only that, "capitalism" rewards effort. Without capitalism, we'd ALL be "welfare recipients".
In a socialist world, if you don't march in step with what the government wants, they simply stop sending you your check.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:26:11 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1762
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
Excellent points!..... The first, speaking to what I just said, is very well put....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stimpy
As if Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists! THEY ALL DO! IT'S POLITICS! And the fact that so many of you only pay attention during elections requires them to raise large sums of money to run expensive campaigns.
And as stated above, I believe Obama to be a Manchurian candidate who, without a teleprompter, is a babbling idiot with no real ideas of his own. Or at least, none that he is confident enough to share with the rest of us. [paraphrased] "When a child is taken to a health care center, to get some health care" (as opposed to buying a candy bar I guess ) "If that child needs a breathalyzer... [corrects himself saying] ... an 'inhilator' " (don't even know how to spell that since what he REALLY meant to say was "INHALER", and much is made about Bush's mispeaks and such words as "nucular")
...the second I also think is dead on! If Pelosi and Reid didn't think they could control Obama like their own personal marionette, do you think they'd have let him get this far? What Obama says he wants to do if elected is scarey enough - but think about what these two will be up to if they've got no one at all to stand up to them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:31:40 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 70
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Bush's mispeaks and such words as "nucular") It would be so nice to have a president that could pronounce the word properly.
Yeah, I'm sure that will be comforting to someone in the crowd at one of "The One's" rallies who's having and asthmatic attack and forgot their "inhaler" and Obama calls on someone to, "Get this man an 'inhilator'". :P
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 6:35:08 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2915
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
quote:
What was it about Bush that you didn't like from the start? He's a little rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth that wouldn't know-- or care-- what the middle class wants or needs if we hit him over the head with it. That and his STUPID snide smile. And he hasn't disappointed me, LOL. The man doesn't have a clue.
Do you dislike Gore and Kerry as well?
_____________________________
may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 7:03:40 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 70
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bzirk
Do you dislike Gore and Kerry as well?
Can I answer that? YES! :P
Let's see... with Gore we have a global warming alarmist who doesn't seem all that concerned when it comes to practicing what he preaches. I could probably turn on every conceivable electric item and/or fill every electrical socket with something that merely drains by virtue of being plugged in and STILL probably use LESS electricity than Gore does! One flight of his private jet probably pollutes more than my car does in an ENTIRE YEAR! And then the CFL's that we will be obligated to start buying which due to their LEAD content, is probably more harmful to the environment than the extra energy used by the incandescents. Unless maybe you're a good little soldier and dispose of them in a sealed mason jar (Bell's gotta love this!) and take proper "procedures" in disposing of them if they break, then hope they don't get broken upon disposal as well.
Then there's Kerry who's war protest was so self-serving that he didn't even have the integrity to throw his ACTUAL MEDALS over the White House fence but instead used some "replicas". Or who was touted as being qualified to serve as Commander in Chief due to his service in Vietnam, only to have some of his supporters later claim that the far more relevant service of John McCain did not "automatically qualify him to be Commander in Chief". Poor Kerry who felt "swift boated" by the very people he accused of atrocities that never even happened! Yeah, poor guy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 7:16:22 PM
|
|
|
cinnken
Posts: 8
Joined: 2/28/2008
From: Redmond, WA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stimpy
quote:
quote:
Bush's mispeaks and such words as "nucular") It would be so nice to have a president that could pronounce the word properly.
Yeah, I'm sure that will be comforting to someone in the crowd at one of "The One's" rallies who's having and asthmatic attack and forgot their "inhaler" and Obama calls on someone to, "Get this man an 'inhilator'". :P
ROFL.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 7:19:35 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
You say that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time (FYI: Bush doesn't vote).
But Obama has voted along party lines 96% of the time. 96% of the time he voted in line with Democrats in Congress with a 9% approval rating. The same Democrats that vowed to be the most ethical Congress in the history of the US. The same Democrats that vowed when taking control in 2006 to reduce the high price of gas (we see how well that is going).
Obama has missed 294 votes with the current Congress. That's over 45% of the time he wasn't doing his job.
So if you want more of the same then vote for Obama who WILL be controlled by Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy. The same Democrats who have done nothing for the last 2 years.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 7:21:48 PM
|
|
|
cinnken
Posts: 8
Joined: 2/28/2008
From: Redmond, WA
Status: offline
|
Relay says she's not bitter, but a look at her recent posts under a variety of subjects would dispute this.
To hate someone because they were (as Ann Richards would have said) "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" may require therapy.
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 8:02:06 PM
|
|
|
cinnken
Posts: 8
Joined: 2/28/2008
From: Redmond, WA
Status: offline
|
I don't have an issue with McCain supporting/standing with Bush 90% of the time, if in fact this is correct.
Again, I would say that the majority of this support is aligned with Iraq. I would love to know more about what McCain opposed Bush on, as this is where we can see their differences. They are not buddies by any means, in fact, they quite disliked each other.
I must give credit of my growing affection towards McCain to Obama. Yes, Obama has opened my eyes to the outstanding qualities and attributes of McCain, and for that I am grateful.
BTW, in my humble opinion, the media has done more damage to our country, our economy, our President, our "contentedness" than anything else. They have been hammering us relentlessly on how awful Bush is, our country is, and most importantly now, how AWFUL our economy is. This unrelentless negative bashing against anything wholesome or good has gone on for the last several years.
During this political season, I recommend a book written by Frank Peretti called "Prophecy". It is a fictitious story that parallels a political campaign and how what we think we are seeing day to day is not at all what is really happening in the spiritual world. I enjoyed this book very much several years ago and my 13 year old daughter just finished reading and recommends it as well. The cultural battle we are in is much deeper than the day to day bantering and, as Christians we will ultimately prevail! Praise God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which presidential ticket do you trust more on econ... - 9/20/2008 8:14:26 PM
|
|
|
cinnken
Posts: 8
Joined: 2/28/2008
From: Redmond, WA
Status: offline
|
Cinnken asked Relay:
Do you work/volunteer for the Obama campaign?
You answered everything and more except for the above question. Do you work for the Obama campaign or are you volunteering to monitor online sites such as this on their behalf?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
