What's wrong with America?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by freethought, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. freethought
    Offline

    freethought Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    38
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    I've heard the line used by Barack Obama that he believes that "what's wrong with America, can be changed by what's right with America." Or words to that effect.

    But I'm looking at the polls that show the race as a dead heat, and I think Obama is overestimating what is right with America.

    Over the last 28 years the democrats have held the white house for only 8.

    The trend during those 8 years was a strong economy, a shrinking deficit into the realm of a balanced budget. During the other 20 years (Reagan, Bush Sr, dubya) the economy has experienced multiple recessions, and seen an 8 trillion dollar increase in the federal debt.

    Right now the meltdowns, the bankruptcies the mortgage crisis can almost all be attributed to lack of regulation, risky investment, and overall failure of government oversight. Whistles were blown, flags were waved and a republican congress and white house did nothing.

    Now with high and rising unemployment, rising inflation, a severely weakened dollar, a plunging stock market, trade deficits and declining exports/rising imports, massive debt and deficit and miniscule growth, we have an election where all of these problems can basically be tied to one party, and the polls are tied.

    On top of that there's Iraq, Afghanistan, bin Laden is free, torture, Abu Graib, declining freedoms and government spying, Katrina, Alberto Gonzalez, federal prosecutors, etc. etc. etc.

    One of the candidates has gone along with 90% of this and maintains that the economy is fundamentally strong.

    And we are TIED IN THE POLLS

    If this continues then I'm afraid that Barack Obama is simply wrong, and that what's right with America, apparently can't overcome what's wrong. And the ultimate proof will be the election of John McCain.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Yeah we're tied in the polls because what you call "government oversight" others call "government interference." I most certainly did not prosper under Clinton. Matter of fact I lost income because of his tax policies. I haven't prospered under Bush either. But I haven't lost either.

    Now we are looking at a choice of McCain saying no new taxes (yes, I know we've heard that before), versus Obama's CERTAIN increased taxation. Since I feel I'm being robbed to begin with, I'm not voting for a certain tax increase.
     
  3. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,284
    Thanks Received:
    3,052
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    Still, ecomically things are usually better under a Dem. Repubs like to spend, spend spend
     
  4. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,156
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,729
    On whose watch was legislation signed that loosened regulations on the banking industry. I'll give you one guess. Starts with a C. Not to mention the ten years he sat there and let the terrorists kick his butt. That starts with a C also. Eight, make that eight years.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2008
  5. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,284
    Thanks Received:
    3,052
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    Yeah, so many terrorists kicked his butt :cuckoo:
    That aside, he left the country with a surplus....
     
  6. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,156
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,729


    you don't think terrorists kicked his butt? Really! :clap2:
     
  7. oreo
    Online

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,481
    Thanks Received:
    1,960
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,160
    The 8 democrat years you're referring too are the Clinton years.

    Really, Bill Clinton was not signing 200K new paychecks per month.

    If you want to give thanks, it would be better to send Thank You letters to Bill Gates, & John Chambers & many others in the high tech industry that put our economy into a major boom period during that time. Bill was simply lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office during this time period.

    Presidents do not control economies, the private sector does. Presidents & congress can influence economies with their tax policies. Higher taxes do not stimulate new job creation. The federal reserve can influence our economy by raising or lowering short term interest rates.
     
  8. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Nope, and any terrorists that did "kick his butt" were supplied and funded by Reagan/Bush 41 when those two were President.

    :eusa_whistle:
     
  9. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,156
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,729
    he didn't leave a surplus either.


    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. freethought
    Offline

    freethought Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    38
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    The comment about bank and financial sector being passed by Clinton is only half the story:
    (I can't post URLs, so type cnn before the rest of the link for the story.
    ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html] ---Clinton signs banking overhaul measure - November 12, 1999

    It was an initiative that was undertaken by a republican congress, which Clinton helped produce. To put it squarely on Clinton simply isn't accurate. But more than that it doesn't speak to the current situation. Some of the problems can be traced back to the legislation, but that doesn't excuse or explain what's happened since Jan 20 2001. Again, many economists, industry analysts etc all raised warnings, but nothing was done.

    To bring up terrorists and bill clinton as pertaining to the topic of this post either means you didn't read the post or your part of 'what's wrong with America.' It doesn't apply, but more than that your assertion is flat out and demonstrably wrong.

    I think the bigger issue when it comes to the economy isn't so much a raise in taxes. The nation has debt and needs to pay that debt off, otherwise, just like all those people who have lost their homes, the creditors that hold our debt, may come and take metaphorical homes.

    If you have debt, you cut back on certain things, you try to make more money and you put more of what you do make towards paying it back. That's what America needs to do. That may mean a tax raise, but it's also sound economic and financial policy. To deny that is obtuse. How, if any, raise in taxes should be implement can and should be debated.

    But it comes down to people not realizing any of these problems or refusing to do anything about the problems mentioned here, and in the OP. Moreover, voting for a man that seems to want to continue many if not most of the problematic policies is the worst thing that can happen, and yet it's something roughly half of Americans are thinking of doing, and that's INSANE. What's the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result....

    The slogan of "it;s the economy, stupid," probably needs to be changed to "Stupid, it's the economy," for this election. Maybe that will make people understand.
     

Share This Page