Economy's Effect On The Election

[DanielNegreanu 141]

With the news of the economy today, how do you think this affects the election? Feels like ever since Palin came around that the McCain camp has been steam rolling with all the momentum. Lots of time between now and election, but do you believe that the economic crisis we are facing is a big enough deal to give Obama the upper hand? Feels like a golden opportunity to change the momentum, and if Obama doesn't hit back hard on this issue while the iron is hot, then I don't see him winning. If he is able to use a bit of "fear mongering" in terms of the economy, scaring people into thinking that McCain would only makes things worse, that should resonate with lots of voters. He could use past McCain quotes effectively here, a la, being computer illiterate and also that the economy isn't his strong suit. When it comes to the economy, I don't even think Palin would help there since she doesn't have an economic pedigree at all, with her talking points being: energy, saftey, and reform. No talk at all about the economy from her in her recent trip, at least it wasn't a focal point. Also, off topic, but I'm always impressed with David Bergen, a CNN analyst. He seems to really have a good grasp on what's going on...

[AmScray 355]

The economy is the biggest issue we're facing.Both are positively TERRIBLE choices, in this regard.Obama appeals to the idealism and naivete of certain types of people who don't understand even the most basic dynamics of the economy, McCain is an old, crusty security blanket for people who fear change... and while we waste our time arguing about the wrong stuff and electing the wrong people for the wrong reasons, our economic course will continue to deteriorate.

[El Guapo 8]

It could definitely play a role, but I would like to believe that most American's understand that the presidents direct effect on current economic conditions are fairly limited, and would also see how much raising taxes on the rich and corporations would stifle growth.Where someone could really step in the forefront here is if they talk about some of the regulation problems that these banks are having while being allowed to be over extended and the expiring of some very important short sale and margin rules from post great depression era.

[nutzbuster 7]

With the news of the economy today, how do you think this affects the election? Feels like ever since Palin came around that the McCain camp has been steam rolling with all the momentum. Lots of time between now and election, but do you believe that the economic crisis we are facing is a big enough deal to give Obama the upper hand? Feels like a golden opportunity to change the momentum, and if Obama doesn't hit back hard on this issue while the iron is hot, then I don't see him winning. If he is able to use a bit of "fear mongering" in terms of the economy, scaring people into thinking that McCain would only makes things worse, that should resonate with lots of voters. He could use past McCain quotes effectively here, a la, being computer illiterate and also that the economy isn't his strong suit. When it comes to the economy, I don't even think Palin would help there since she doesn't have an economic pedigree at all, with her talking points being: energy, saftey, and reform. No talk at all about the economy from her in her recent trip, at least it wasn't a focal point. Also, off topic, but I'm always impressed with David Bergen, a CNN analyst. He seems to really have a good grasp on what's going on...

Coin flip, but I agree with you here.The economy will be the rally cry from here on out, who ever gets folks to believe that they are the saviors will win, imo.Historically, the Democrats have the better economic record.meh?

[nutzbuster 7]

It could definitely play a role, but I would like to believe that most American's understand that the presidents direct effect on current economic conditions are fairly limited, and would also see how much raising taxes on the rich and corporations would stifle growth.Where someone could really step in the forefront here is if they talk about some of the regulation problems that these banks are having while being allowed to be over extended and the expiring of some very important short sale and margin rules from post great depression era.

yup

[AmScray 355]

It could definitely play a role, but I would like to believe that most American's understand that the presidents direct effect on current economic conditions are fairly limited, and would also see how much raising taxes on the rich and corporations would stifle growth.

You may want to believe that the American public doesn't overestimate the role of the president in the economy, but you know as well as I do that just isn't the case.The "god syndrome" that pollutes the mentality of man ensures that all failures and/or successes of a nation will be laid at the feet of whoever happens to be president at a given point in time, even if the correlation to said president is is non-existent. Presidents have very little ability to effect a short term positive economic impact, but they have an almost unlimited ability to have a short term negative impact so at times, it's justified, but we all know how much credit Clinton gets (and happily takes) for his presiding over the 1990's, when in reality, he had virtually nothing to do with that orgy.

[checkymcfold 0]

this SHOULD be a fairly airtight argument:1. milton friedman, the poster boy of deregulation, has gone on record as saying that the typical delay between economic policy implementation and its effects being felt is around 18 months.2. george bush has been in office for more than 18 months.3. 80% of america feels that they are worse off economically than they were 8 years ago, and we have the largest budget deficit in the history of the US.4. john mccain and sarah palin have both gone on record as saying that their economic policies involve lower taxes for the business sector and more affluent members of society, further deregulation of business, and more free market ideas being put into place.5. george bush's administration lowered taxes on the business sector and more affluent members of society, deregulated business, and put more free market ideas into place.6. ergo, electing john mccain does not seem, uh, fiscally prudent.somehow, i am reasonably sure that the democrats will **** up in how they articulate this, the media will cast it as "democrats say that..." instead of "it is the case that...." and the republicans will blame it all on clinton and otherwise lie about it, and the american populace will continue to think that republicans know more about economics than democrats. pretty sad, imo.

[gobears 0]

You may want to believe that the American public doesn't overestimate the role of the president in the economy, but you know as well as I do that just isn't the case.The "god syndrome" that pollutes the mentality of man ensures that all failures and/or successes of a nation will be laid at the feet of whoever happens to be president at a given point in time, even if the correlation to said president is is non-existent. Presidents have very little ability to effect a short term positive economic impact, but they have an almost unlimited ability to have a short term negative impact so at times, it's justified, but we all know how much credit Clinton gets (and happily takes) for his presiding over the 1990's, when in reality, he had virtually nothing to do with that orgy.

Basically what I think and Obama needs more comments from McCain like the one he gave earlier this morning in Florida: Our economy — I think, still — the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."McCain clarified his statements later on in the day but not after Obama took advantage of that one statement to make McCain seem out of touch.

[El Guapo 8]

You may want to believe that the American public doesn't overestimate the role of the president in the economy, but you know as well as I do that just isn't the case.The "god syndrome" that pollutes the mentality of man ensures that all failures and/or successes of a nation will be laid at the feet of whoever happens to be president at a given point in time, even if the correlation to said president is is non-existent. Presidents have very little ability to effect a short term positive economic impact, but they have an almost unlimited ability to have a short term negative impact so at times, it's justified, but we all know how much credit Clinton gets (and happily takes) for his presiding over the 1990's, when in reality, he had virtually nothing to do with that orgy.

Correct, I said I would "like" to believe.Also one of the problems we have from the Clinton Era, that nobody seems to want to admit, is that we had budgets created based on the tax revenue from all the money being made from stock options, during the late 90's. This is one of the reason that California's budget is in such turmoil, that and also the property tax bills that are not being paid.

[checkymcfold 0]

Basically what I think and Obama needs more comments from McCain like the one he gave earlier this morning in Florida: Our economy — I think, still — the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."McCain clarified his statements later on in the day but not after Obama took advantage of that one statement to make McCain seem out of touch.

more importantly, i saw obama saying this on CNN. we'll see if it shows up on foxnews .

[DanielNegreanu 141]

more importantly, i saw obama saying this on CNN. we'll see if it shows up on foxnews .

Just sawing him speaking on Colorado and he said it better. He mentioned that McCain clarified it, but Obama was like, "You can change what you said but that's not what you meant. You said the same thing two weeks ago." That's a lame version of what he said, but Obama was very aggressive with his words and seemed to have a pep in his step like, "Enough Palin, I got somethin' good hear, let's run with it."

[checkymcfold 0]

Just sawing him speaking on Colorado and he said it better. He mentioned that McCain clarified it, but Obama was like, "You can change what you said but that's not what you meant. You said the same thing two weeks ago." That's a lame version of what he said, but Obama was very aggressive with his words and seemed to have a pep in his step like, "Enough Palin, I got somethin' good hear, let's run with it."

oh man, that's so good. a democrat with balls, i like it!also, both of us need to do more work on sandi. she lives in michigan!

[hblask 1]

4. john mccain and sarah palin have both gone on record as saying that their economic policies involve lower taxes for the business sector and more affluent members of society, further deregulation of business, and more free market ideas being put into place.

Which president are you talking about? Bush did none of these. Bush is about as far from a free-market president as we could've gotten. The Bush years were left of Clinton. Using Bush as an example of govt gone bad undermines your case for Obama.

[nutzbuster 7]

also, both of us need to do more work on sandi. she lives in michigan!

lol. Good luck, but I'll let her chime in and drink your milkshake.This election will come down to one thing....ready???..... O H I O....waiter, beer please, thx.

[whatgreatis 0]

Which president are you talking about? Bush did none of these. Bush is about as far from a free-market president as we could've gotten. The Bush years were left of Clinton. Using Bush as an example of govt gone bad undermines your case for Obama.

Whoah whoah whoah Mr.Misinformation. Haven't you heard anything of the tax cuts for the wealthy? I know you have. Bush has been deregulating the markets for 8 years now. It's so ****ing sad that this whole economic crisis could have been avoided with the SMALLEST OF REGULATION. Just a little regulation would have gone a long way in saving the American taxpayer money and stabilizing the financial sector. It's not like the financial sector is the only area which as seen massive deregulation in the last 8 years but I think it's one of the most critical.Not to mention how inept Bush has made consumer protectionist agencies like the FDA fundamentally weak. We all saw that shit storm play out during the Salmonella outbreak.I'll agree that Clinton was no lefty in terms of economics. He was a centrist by almost all accounts.

[hblask 1]

Whoah whoah whoah Mr.Misinformation. Haven't you heard anything of the tax cuts for the wealthy? I know you have. Bush has been deregulating the markets for 8 years now. It's so ****ing sad that this whole economic crisis could have been avoided with the SMALLEST OF REGULATION. Just a little regulation would have gone a long way in saving the American taxpayer money and stabilizing the financial sector. It's not like the financial sector is the only area which as seen massive deregulation in the last 8 years but I think it's one of the most critical.Not to mention how inept Bush has made consumer protectionist agencies like the FDA fundamentally weak. We all saw that shit storm play out during the Salmonella outbreak.I'll agree that Clinton was no lefty in terms of economics. He was a centrist by almost all accounts.

There was no significant deregulation during the Bush era. Federal spending increased at the highest rate in a long time. These are hallmarks of lefty politics. Blaming free markets for this economy is like blaming babies on virginity.

[checkymcfold 0]

There was no significant deregulation during the Bush era. Federal spending increased at the highest rate in a long time. These are hallmarks of lefty politics. Blaming free markets for this economy is like blaming babies on virginity.

energy industry, anyone?as to federal spending, that has more to do with his over-/misguided reaction to 9/11 than an overall policy of regulating business.it's also worth saying that federal spending is in no way logically linked to the regulation of businesses beyond the fact that it usually costs money to regulate business. the connection doesn't work the other way as you're implying.sorry for the excessive edits, but you do also realize that phil gramm's deregulatory CFM act in 1999 was one of the great instigators of the subprime market collapse, right?

[AmScray 355]

Whoah whoah whoah Mr.Misinformation. Haven't you heard anything of the tax cuts for the wealthy? I know you have. Bush has been deregulating the markets for 8 years now.

How the **** are "tax cuts" deregulation?Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. There's a certain sort of person out there who believes that all money really belongs to the government and any time they stop taking it from private citizens, they're "deregulating".

[Balloon guy 158]

Well one things for sure.All we need to do to fix the entire economy is to tax the wealthyThen everything will be right, the world will fall into place, the economy will be perfect, and the planet will show it's thanks by cooling off a couple degrees.To think bush could have done this and everything would be different.

[checkymcfold 0]

How the **** are "tax cuts" deregulation?Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. There's a certain sort of person out there who believes that all money really belongs to the government and any time they stop taking it from private citizens, they're "deregulating".

i don't think that's quite what he meant--at least that's not what i'm arguing. instead, i'd say that excessive tax cuts and deregulative (anti-)legislation are part of the same economic philosophy that has led the median income in the country to be lower than it was at the start of the bush administration. they're certainly not the same thing.

[copernicus 0]

I think it helps McCain. People are going to be more reluctant to entrust things to a 1st term senator if there is a crisis looming.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think it helps McCain. People are going to be more reluctant to entrust things to a 1st term senator if there is a crisis looming.

you don't need experience when you've shown such incredible skills in picking those that work for you.Like Obama's pick of Biden...

[whatgreatis 0]

How the **** are "tax cuts" deregulation?Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. There's a certain sort of person out there who believes that all money really belongs to the government and any time they stop taking it from private citizens, they're "deregulating".

They're not. Maybe I should have made a paragraph to seperate them so you wouldn't think they are one idea?

[hblask 1]

energy industry, anyone?as to federal spending, that has more to do with his over-/misguided reaction to 9/11 than an overall policy of regulating business.it's also worth saying that federal spending is in no way logically linked to the regulation of businesses beyond the fact that it usually costs money to regulate business. the connection doesn't work the other way as you're implying.sorry for the excessive edits, but you do also realize that phil gramm's deregulatory CFM act in 1999 was one of the great instigators of the subprime market collapse, right?

The energy industry is deregulated? LOL, that's a laugh.Yes, more spending means more regulation. That money is going somewhere.And the mortgage meltdown is due to the fact that the govt agreed to be a lender of last resort. Private gain, public risk. Figure it out.

[checkymcfold 0]

The energy industry is deregulated? LOL, that's a laugh.Yes, more spending means more regulation. That money is going somewhere.And the mortgage meltdown is due to the fact that the govt agreed to be a lender of last resort. Private gain, public risk. Figure it out.

the energy industry is less regulated than it was in 2000.no, it doesn't. more regulation means more spending, to some degree, but you can spend money without regulating business. that should be fairly obvious, imo.the last sentence is nonsensical. people defaulted on subprime mortgages and the mortgage companies lost money because the government "agreed to be a lender of last resort" after the companies made their financial shitstorm public? no makey sense. i agree that the government bailout was probably a bad idea longterm, but to suggest that it caused the silly-named companies to go under is a bit goofy.