Who'll be the better president?

[CStylen]

Americans don't like being taxed, and that is the real facts. It's becasue of people like this:

Hannah Pool: What do you think of Sarah Palin?

Pamela Anderson: I'm not a big fan. I want Barack Obama for president. I love Obama. I call Palin the helicopter huntress from hell! I want my children to have a wonderful future and it's disturbing when I look around. Americans aren't very well liked. A likable president would be a great start.

That Obama is winning in the polls. Of course, if any of his actual beliefs and policies came to light, oh wait, the mainstream media won't let that happen. Is there a pill I can just take that will knock me out for the next 4 years?

 

[Wile E]

Sorry, my US politics must be a bit messed up...... I thought GW was a Republican and that he had been in office almost 8 years and for most of that time, your financial institutes have been lending almost anybody much more than they could ever afford to repay, culminating in what might be the worst financial/economic crisis since the depression?

And you can thank Bill Clinton for signing the bills that let it happen.

 

[ChromeDome]

Americans don't like being taxed, and that is the real facts.

yup

thats why under Barack Obama people / families earning between $38,000 a year (or thereabout) and $66,000 a year (me for example) will see roughly a $1,200 dollar a year tax cut. under John McCain i get a $325 tax cut. which means the mofo has increased my taxes roughly $800 over what Barack wants to tax me. that is a "real fact"

repubs love that funny math

"no we're going to CUT your taxes. just not as much!"

unless you're an oil company or high income big wig :/


Obama '08

 

[Wile E]

Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on "the wealthy" and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, "What we have had right now is a situation where we've cut taxes for people who don't need them."

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Mr. Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax, and a 55% estate tax. (must be time to be patriotic huh Biden?)

According to recent Gallup data, "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income, but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent -- those below the median income level -- now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

The Urban Institute Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center has just published a detailed analysis and comparison of the tax policies of Senators McCain and Obama.

It concludes that compared to current policy, McCain would cut taxes by $628 billion over the next 10 years and that Obama would raise them by $734 billion over the same period.

Indeed.

From http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaPolitics.htm

And to add to this:

Raising the taxes on the rich is a terrible idea. The rich own all of the businesses that drive our economy. If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here? No, they aren't. They are going to outsource, cut jobs, cut wages/benefits, etc to make up the losses. Them doing that equals less jobs for us Americans, pay cuts, etc., and will do nothing but lead to the further collapse of our economy.

For those that actually paid attention, Reagan's trickle down policies actually worked. Fatten the pockets of the people that own the business that run this country's economy, and those people dump more money into their business, which in turn leads to more jobs, better paying jobs, better equipment, better working conditions, etc. It worked, and it worked well. It was Clinton's administration that nullified them, and put our country where it is today.

 

[ChromeDome]

at the end of the Reagan administration the country was in fairly poor economic shape that even Bush Sr couldn't pull us out of. because it was a little too much "same 'ol, same 'ol"

after 12 years of that Clinton came in, raised some taxes, balanced budgets, we had a surplus, and the economy boomed

now you can give the guy credit or not, but that is what happened

nothing can stay the same forever in american politics. the repubs have held office for eight years. they'll get another chance

until then the dems will clean up the mess again

its just the good 'ol "ying and yang" at work

 

[Wile E]

at the end of the Reagan administration the country was in fairly poor economic shape that even Bush Sr couldn't pull us out of. because it was a little too much "same 'ol, same 'ol"

after 12 years of that Clinton came in, raised some taxes, balanced budgets, we had a surplus, and the economy boomed

now you can give the guy credit or not, but that is what happened

nothing can stay the same forever in american politics. the repubs have held office for eight years. they'll get another chance

until then the dems will clean up the mess again

its just the good 'ol "ying and yang" at work

Except that, if you actually knew anything about economics, you would know that it takes YEARS for changes a president makes to take full effect on the economy. The boom you saw throughout the 90's was the product of Reagan's policies. The current situation you see now is a result of Clinton's policies. There is no questions about this. It is fact. Anybody that knows anything about economics will tell you the same thing. it's the media that leads the american public to believe otherwise. but unfortunately for them or you, believing does not make it truth.

The person that is in office at the time of the happening is of little consequence. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time in Clinton's case)

Clinton did more damage to this country in his time in office, than any other modern president I can think of.

 

[Tatty_Two]

And you can thank Bill Clinton for signing the bills that let it happen.

I have no doubts about that....so did GWB watch it fail for nearly 8 years without putting anything in place, I though we elected new leaders to try and put things right including past mistakes?

 

[Tatty_Two]

And to add to this:

Raising the taxes on the rich is a terrible idea. The rich own all of the businesses that drive our economy. If Obama raises taxes for them, do you think they are going to keep their business here? No, they aren't. They are going to outsource, cut jobs, cut wages/benefits, etc to make up the losses. Them doing that equals less jobs for us Americans, pay cuts, etc., and will do nothing but lead to the further collapse of our economy.

For those that actually paid attention, Reagan's trickle down policies actually worked. Fatten the pockets of the people that own the business that run this country's economy, and those people dump more money into their business, which in turn leads to more jobs, better paying jobs, better equipment, better working conditions, etc. It worked, and it worked well. It was Clinton's administration that nullified them, and put our country where it is today.

I agree, it happened in the UK back in the nineties, our manufacturing industry is now only a shadow of it's former self.

 

[ChromeDome]

Except that, if you actually knew anything about economics, you would know that it takes YEARS for changes a president makes to take full effect on the economy. The boom you saw throughout the 90's was the product of Reagan's policies. The current situation you see now is a result of Clinton's policies. There is no questions about this. It is fact. Anybody that knows anything about economics will tell you the same thing. it's the media that leads the american public to believe otherwise. but unfortunately for them or you, believing does not make it truth.

The person that is in office at the time of the happening is of little consequence. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time in Clinton's case)

Clinton did more damage to this country in his time in office, than any other modern president I can think of.

so under that reasoning, if Barack Obama takes office and things get better.....then George W. Bush deserves the credit?

and if John McCain takes office and things get worse...Bill Clinton still gets the blame? or does Bush and McCain now get the credit / blame?

i don't know anything about economics, but politically that sounds like a scam of some sort

so...Clinton benefited from Reagan / Bush and now Barack will benefit for Bush Jr. but if he doesn't and things continue to sour should we still look at the Bush Administration if things get worse, or will we now blame Barack? or Clinton still? because according to your logic w/e Barack does to taxes or anything else won't hurt the economy until he is well out of office

i just don't think "its the economy, stupid" like it was before. i mean it is, obviously. we all need jobs and to earn money and for our markets to thrive. but we also need some reasoning and leadership

its like Bush said "Wall Street got drunk"

we just can't have that anymore. and with the money and savings of the common American investor. all that money just gone. poof, up in smoke

i don't know much about economics but economic principles should not be the defining ones that drive this nation imo

 

[Wile E]

so under that reasoning, if Barack Obama takes office and things get better.....then George W. Bush deserves the credit?

and if John McCain takes office and things get worse...Bill Clinton still gets the blame? or does Bush and McCain now get the credit / blame?

i don't know anything about economics, but politically that sounds like a scam of some sort

so...Clinton benefited from Reagan / Bush and now Barack will benefit for Bush Jr. but if he doesn't and things continue to sour should we still look at the Bush Administration if things get worse, or will we now blame Barack? or Clinton still? because according to your logic w/e Barack does to taxes or anything else won't hurt the economy until he is well out of office

i just don't think "its the economy, stupid" like it was before. i mean it is, obviously. we all need jobs and to earn money and for our markets to thrive. but we also need some reasoning and leadership

its like Bush said "Wall Street got drunk"

we just can't have that anymore. and with the money and savings of the common American investor. all that money just gone. poof, up in smoke.

i don't know much about economics but economic principles should not be the defining ones that drive this nation imo

I have no idea where Bush's changes will lead us. I hope it's for the better, but I am somewhat skeptical about that myself. I never said Bush was a great president, but he was a damn site better than Clinton.

And if things do get better under Obama, you bet it's because of Bush, but it's likely also Bush's fault if things get worse.

And yes, economic principals should be driving this nation. Without a good economy, we the people, go hungry. The economy is the single most important factor in any one of our lives here. It effects everything, both directly and indirectly. To think anything otherwise is a grave error.

 

[Odin Eidolon]

I have no idea where Bush's changes will lead us. I hope it's for the better, but I am somewhat skeptical about that myself. I never said Bush was a great president, but he was a damn site better than Clinton.

And if things do get better under Obama, you bet it's because of Bush, but it's likely also Bush's fault if things get worse.

And yes, economic principals should be driving this nation. Without a good economy, we the people, go hungry. The economy is the single most important factor in any one of our lives here. It effects everything, both directly and indirectly. To think anything otherwise is a grave error.

So you all americans think only of economy? Can be the most important factor, but it isnt the only one. Political views about education, environment, healthcare are almost as important as economy. A rich country doesnt always mean a happy country. Look at the 1930-1940 germany. Or at the 1920-1989 URSS

 

[Rammsteiner]

Im indeed agreeing that raising taxes for rich people is not nice so to say. Why not? Because 'most' rich people worked there asses off just like any labor, less physical maybe, still they work a lot. On the otherhand, there are at the same time rich people for doing hardly anything special, like sporters. Or managers who only once in their life did a good job but for the rest of their life they've only been job hopping and everytime they got another job they got money for leaving.

But raising taxes on rich people also gives a larger margin to get income for the state, to either support more social services or paying off things. But, I think this extra tax for the rich shouldnt be very significant. If I was rich and there was a general tax of say 10% I dont feel like paying 15%, 11% at most really. If you look in thie country, my dad pays almost 50% tax because he's in the upper grade income yet he does work very hard.

And to come back at the economic situation of America and the oil... I think all those cars in America are anything but driving economic with those V8's, cycling can get you very far too (and it's good for the fatties). Besides that, the wars from America need fuel as well, all those tanks, Humvee's, heli's, planes, logistics, ships etc. It all needs fuel. It's easy to say 'if we didnt have to import all the oil we could pay the war easy', but without the war America would have a whole lot of more money to invest even more into oil rigs.

Also, dont forget that most problems regarding the dollar is mainly everyone kept on borrowing money. People from banks, banks from banks, banks giving basicly impossible mortgages. And if one of those falls down... It's clear as water, just dont spend money you dont have. Everybody should have learned that from their childhood really. Of course other factors come into play as well, and investing is sometimes needed. But well, I hope people learned from this though, although Bush was elected two times in a row so I dont know if the lesson was big enough

 

[trt740]

i'm vote for Obama. because he's relative is from indonesia

You might want to rethink that after you read this, because it sound like you wouldvote for G.W and Mccain aswell.

Us president Candidates are related?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ves/index.html

related news


(CNN) -- Perhaps, now the candidates will play nice.

For all their insistence on how unlike they are from one another, the three U.S. presidential candidates share some noteworthy family connections, the New England Historic Genealogical Society has found.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a linchpin of his campaign, is distantly related not only to President George W. Bush but also to another wartime leader -- former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Because of his shared ancestry with President Bush, Obama is also indirectly related to his rival on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain.

McCain, it turns out, is a sixth cousin of First Lady Laura Bush.

Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is related to beatnik author Jack Kerouac, Canadian Prime Minster Pierre Trudeau and Camilla Parker-Bowles, wife of Prince Charles of England.

Clinton also shares ancestors with Grammy Award-winning singers Celine Dion and Madonna.

The senator won a Best Spoken Word Grammy for the audio version of her book, "It Takes a Village." Rival Obama also snagged one in the same category for his book "The Audacity of Hope."

Don't Miss
The Political Ticker
Conservatives who sometimes accuse Democrats of being in bed with liberal Hollywood elites may have been handed one more round of ammunition by the Society's findings.

Clinton, the Society said, is related to Angelina Jolie. And Obama is related to Jolie's boyfriend Brad Pitt. Watch a report on the candidates' family trees and other news »

The New England Historic Genealogical Society, founded in 1845, says it is the oldest such organization in the country. Members spent three years tracing the lineage of the candidates.

Among its other findings:

McCain, the Vietnam War veteran who spent five years as a prisoner of war, descends from a long line of kings: Scottish King William the Lion, English King Edward I and French King Louis VII.

Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, is "related to millions of contemporary Americans - perhaps even a significant percentage of the population," the researchers said.

He is cousins with six U.S presidents, including Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford. He is also linked to American artist Georgia O'Keefe, the Duchess of Windsor and two men who signed the Declaration of Independence.


Most surprisingly, Obama -- the man who could become America's first African-American president -- is linked by ancestry to Robert E. Lee, who commanded the armies of the Southern slave-holding states during the American civil war.


those are some crazy facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by trt740; 07-06-2008 at 09:42 PM.

 

[Tatty_Two]

So you all americans think only of economy? Can be the most important factor, but it isnt the only one. Political views about education, environment, healthcare are almost as important as economy. A rich country doesnt always mean a happy country. Look at the 1930-1940 germany. Or at the 1920-1989 URSS

Yes to be honest, most or Europe's perception is very much, whoever gets in......lets just hope they have some kind of tangible foreign policy, I suppose, apart from the US economy effecting us all globally, their foreign policy is probably 2nd placed in what we see externally and in fairness, we have not seen a great deal of that in the last 8 years, well not constructively....thats the view we get outside of the US, I am not stating thats necessarily the case or my personal views.

 

[TUngsten]

The person that is in office at the time of the happening is of little consequence. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time in Clinton's case)

Clinton did more damage to this country in his time in office, than any other modern president I can think of.

I agree with the general idea behind this, and that Reagan's economic plan worked for a while, but the Republicans had a FIRM grip on both the house and the Senate during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Recession was already beginning at the end of Reagan's term and GB #1 bore the brunt of that.

Blame Clinton all you want, but the Rep. congress is as much to blame as Clinton for laws and bills passed during his presidency. After all, he can only sign the bills that make it through BOTH houses, which were controlled by Gingrich and the rightwingers. Nobody remembers the republican "Contract for America"? What a nightmare...

It's all so complicated, nuanced, and interwoven that you cannot pin any one issue on a person or party.

 

[CyberDruid]

I'm 46. I've been following US politics for a while. I'm not an economist. But I call BS when people say the prosperity and surplus Clinton left us was Ronald Reagan's legacy. What a joke.

Reagan was a tool...he was manipulated into a lot of dirty unethical politics. The whole Contra scandal. Do some research before Lionizing the man that brought Crack to the Streets. Besides selling drugs to raise money for that dirty war in Nicaragua his team did more to foment terrorism than any other "dirty tricks" team in US history up to that time. You can also credit the Reagan era for putting 1/3 of the population in jail for using pot. Drug testing to work minimum wage...it's ludicrous. The "War on Drugs" is a race war, a class war and is serving the MegaCorps that are raking in BILLIONS warehousing non-violent offenders. If Drugs are such a big problem let's drug test our Congreeman and Senators. Hell let's Drug Test George Bush and see when the last time he did a blast of Cocaine was. Oh that's right our elected leaders are IMMUNE and do not have to take a drug test...but the guy flipping burgers does...

That aside I do not favor either McCain or Obama...if Obama had stood against the "Recovery Plan" I would have given him some points...but he is just another pol. The political system in the US is a sham. There is no real choice. The Demopublicans simply represent Big Business...the only thing that matters is making money for the people that put them in office.

 

[WhiteLotus]

What you do now only comes into noticeable economic results 2 maybe 3 years later.

 

[farlex85]

What you do now only comes into noticeable economic results 2 maybe 3 years later.

If that were true they would not be expecting this bailout plan to have an immediate impact. What's done now does absolutely effect the economy now, but it's true certain aspects and effects aren't felt until later. It's not really a set time table.

I'm 46. I've been following US politics for a while. I'm not an economist. But I call BS when people say the prosperity and surplus Clinton left us was Ronald Reagan's legacy. What a joke.

Reagan was a tool...he was manipulated into a lot of dirty unethical politics. The whole Contra scandal. Do some research before Lionizing the man that brought Crack to the Streets. Besides selling drugs to raise money for that dirty war in Nicaragua his team did more to foment terrorism than any other "dirty tricks" team in US history up to that time. You can also credit the Reagan era for putting 1/3 of the population in jail for using pot. Drug testing to work minimum wage...it's ludicrous. The "War on Drugs" is a race war, a class war and is serving the MegaCorps that are raking in BILLIONS warehousing non-violent offenders. If Drugs are such a big problem let's drug test our Congreeman and Senators. Hell let's Drug Test George Bush and see when the last time he did a blast of Cocaine was. Oh that's right our elected leaders are IMMUNE and do not have to take a drug test...but the guy flipping burgers does...

That aside I do not favor either McCain or Obama...if Obama had stood against the "Recovery Plan" I would have given him some points...but he is just another pol. The political system in the US is a sham. There is no real choice. The Demopublicans simply represent Big Business...the only thing that matters is making money for the people that put them in office.

"And I think to myself, what a wonderful world."

 

[WhiteLotus]

If that were true they would not be expecting this bailout plan to have an immediate impact. What's done now does absolutely effect the economy now, but it's true certain aspects and effects aren't felt until later. It's not really a set time table.

Correct all it does is provide short term security for the stock exchange - but long term the consequences are unforeseeable. (however most likely to be bad, very bad)

 

[Bigjohn]

oh man i'm not from US where you keep talking about socialists media and so on... just google it. And please stop claiming that he was so brave that now he could be a good President. There are tons of soldiers that can be brave, and another ton of them who has been and died. Noone remembers them. that's just PROPAGANDA. look at the real facts, instead. You wanna vote it not for that. thats an excuse. You wanna vote him cuz you hope that you'll pay less taxes (well, see what Bush did, and think about that). And you claim that taxes are unuseful. C'mon guys, taxes are what permits you to write in this thread, to have some kind of instruction, to drive on the roads, to have your beloved soldiers killing people around the world, to have a bit of healthcare if you are poor, to have the police that protects you, to have electricity. EVERYTHING

that's just incredible. noone in europe would complain about taxes. we know its hard but most of us understand we need them. Why dont you?

No one in Europe complains about taxes because you folk don't really have a way to fix the problem. Our constitution allows us to. And, you've been indoctrinated for 50 years of socialism.... the definition of "fair" has been redefined for you; rather than "equal", it means "take from the successfully to pay for stuff others who are less successful want or need, as defined by some wise government committee".

 

[WhiteLotus]

no - we just see our taxes actually doing stuff rather than funding a gigantic war. that is the difference here, the USA spends far too much on arms and "defence".

What does each candidate say about that - each choice may sway me. (if i actually lived in the US that is)

 

[trt740]

yup

thats why under Barrack Obama people / families earning between $38,000 a year (or thereabout) and $66,000 a year (me for example) will see roughly a $1,200 dollar a year tax cut. under John McCain i get a $325 tax cut. which means the mofo has increased my taxes roughly $800 over what Barrack wants to tax me. that is a "real fact"

repubs love that funny math

"no we're going to CUT your taxes. just not as much!"

unless you're an oil company or high income big wig :/


Obama '08

Under Obamas plan you will go from the 38 percent tax bracket to the 59 percent tax bracket ,making 66,000 a year, (thats how your gonna get free health care because it is estimated it will cost 3 trillion dollars to implement)and I hope your 1,200 tax break makes up from the 6,800 hes gonna take from you every year to pay for that. Seems to me thats a 5,800 tax increase for you. plus hes going to remove all of G.W's ,middle class, tax breaks hes giving you, and for a family man thats 3,800 for a guy like me, and hes going to re-implement the marriage tax, which G.W removed costing a married guy like me another 1,500 dollars in taxes and hes gonna reinstate the death tax on small business owner which until G.W removed that tax was responsible for causing over half of the small businesses failures in the USA. All this sounds good doesn't it.

Joe Biden: Be Patriotic Pay Higher Taxes your kidding me right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArJkzRYffec under this plan pay almost 60% of your income in taxes and get a 1,200 tax write off. WTF To be fair Mccain plan is not much better but it is better, it sucks aswell but not as bad as this plan does, read it it's on Obamas web site, both plans Mccains and Obamas are bad, Obamas is just alot worse.

 

[Bigjohn]

no - we just see our taxes actually doing stuff rather than funding a gigantic war. that is the difference here, the USA spends far too much on arms and "defence".

What does each candidate say about that - each choice may sway me. (if i actually lived in the US that is)

No, we see "national defense" as something that's actually in the constitution, while we see 50% of the expenditures of the government being these phony (and largely unconstitutional) income redistribution / entitlement plans.....

I don't like war. I don't want war. But, just like after WWII, we should not pull out until everything is stable as it can be.

BIDEN, obama's VP pick, wanted to divide Iraq into 4 racially determined independant nations... Yeah, that's right - it was his plan... funny, though, that would have forced 2 of the "tribes" to deal with the fact that the other 2 had all the oil... so I'm sure it would have been a perfect and peaceful solution! <NOT>

 

[DaMulta]

Except that, if you actually knew anything about economics, you would know that it takes YEARS for changes a president makes to take full effect on the economy. The boom you saw throughout the 90's was the product of Reagan's policies. The current situation you see now is a result of Clinton's policies. There is no questions about this. It is fact. Anybody that knows anything about economics will tell you the same thing. it's the media that leads the american public to believe otherwise. but unfortunately for them or you, believing does not make it truth.

The person that is in office at the time of the happening is of little consequence. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time in Clinton's case)

Clinton did more damage to this country in his time in office, than any other modern president I can think of.

So let those fucks take a pay cut. They are making 20-200 million dollars. Hell the guy that runs SQL live style cost him 30 million dollars a year just to live. Never in the history of business have the top people ever made as much money as they are now.

Top it all the jobs have went is with the open free trade that(under my understanding)that the republicans have done to us. The only thing we really trade is raw material then get back the goods. We can't pay our people 50 cents an hour like they can in China and other places in the world. Hell the Brits even make our helicopters for us. What we need is a more balanced trade system. It's just crazy, if you were a big business why would you not move to china? Pay your workers 25 cents 50 cents an hour if they they are even more lucky less than that, no EPA to deal with or no real regulated EPA that cost companies here tons of cash. It's a win win situation for a business to move there. Now if it was regulated with more restrictions it would be a lot better. Trade only so much, if over pay a tax. If you sell more than 70-80% here you have to meet out EPA guide lines to deal with us. Just how Bush opened up the truckers from Mex to us, bad idea. I don't know how it's all going to play out, people don't think about it but the do have educated people. Why run your top jobs here(like Bush has said we need to move on to other kinds of jobs)engineers and so forth. When you can get a guy in the neighboring county for 15k a year instead of what you have to pay him here 80k a year.


You could say the boom of Reagan's rule could of came from Carter he was right before him. In parts yes, and other parts no. There is always a sudden impact during their time in office, even more so if they have been in power for two terms. Clinton did well in his time in office. Lots of wars that didn't piss everyone off in America, and there's lots of other things as well.
But
You can't make me believe that Bush has not fucked up our economy. The first 4 years in office they were bad(911 did play a part in that), ask around with anyone that was in the market during those times. In my family(aunts uncles and so forth) lost millions in it. Most of it did come back during the small housing boom, but now everyone is scared to death. It doesn't help that all the baby boomers are all about to retire or are retiring and are scare to death of losing their retirement savings. So they are moving around money in odd spots or just pulling out all together which is also really messing with the money markets.


Besides republicans are all about deregulation deregulation and deregulation, and that's the problem that we are seeing now with the 700BILLION dollar ballout that you and me are going to have to pay. It does have to be done, I just think if they take the ballout they should be broken up into smaller companies because they are way to powerful monopoly size IMO.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Except that, if you actually knew anything about economics, you would know that it takes YEARS for changes a president makes to take full effect on the economy. The boom you saw throughout the 90's was the product of Reagan's policies. The current situation you see now is a result of Clinton's policies. There is no questions about this. It is fact. Anybody that knows anything about economics will tell you the same thing. it's the media that leads the american public to believe otherwise. but unfortunately for them or you, believing does not make it truth.

The person that is in office at the time of the happening is of little consequence. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time in Clinton's case)

Clinton did more damage to this country in his time in office, than any other modern president I can think of.

Some economic changes are instant like opening up trade with neighboring countries. Remember I am the guy that you insisted didn't know anything about economics despite having a brother that got degrees in it. My opinion on it is basically the same as my brother's and chromedome does as well. You say it doesn't make my brother an expert but you having no degree in it so that makes you one? A bit odd.

No, we see "national defense" as something that's actually in the constitution, while we see 50% of the expenditures of the government being these phony (and largely unconstitutional) income redistribution / entitlement plans.....

I don't like war. I don't want war. But, just like after WWII, we should not pull out until everything is stable as it can be.

BIDEN, obama's VP pick, wanted to divide Iraq into 4 racially determined independant nations... Yeah, that's right - it was his plan... funny, though, that would have forced 2 of the "tribes" to deal with the fact that the other 2 had all the oil... so I'm sure it would have been a perfect and peaceful solution! <NOT>

Republicans have no plan and are against any time tables. So you may be pointing fingers at all democrats that present solutions while your own choice is without a solution whatsoever. Big spending and corporate welfare is a republican platform the last 8 years. You are complaining about your own party. I suggest you research it and see whats been going on in the budget the last 8 years.