Obama/Economy ?

[Annie]

How much money do you plan on spending this holiday season for gifts? Let's say $500. Wouldn't it be nice to have $1000 extra to spend more? You have more money, you spend more money, busisnesses have more money, they spend more money and they pay more money to the government. It's a great cycle isn't it?

Oh goody, that'll buy my vote! Those nice ACORN folks gave me cigarettes and a couple bucks for registering too! Although I thought registering 100 times was a bit over the top.

 

[DavidS]

There is plenty of money being collected by the government and by each state individually to repair the infrastructure. What do you think a trillion and a half could do for infrastructure. Hell the feds spent that in a minute with the bail out. Add to that money each state could chip in and there would be plenty to fix the roads.

Skull, this federal fund Obama is talking about would help states with their infrastructures, not pay for it completely. We already do help states with their infrastructure, but in the form of pork barrel spending. There isn't any limit set on the amount of money the federal government can spend. This idea from Obama, will actually CUT government spending.

 

[DavidS]

Oh goody, that'll buy my vote! Those nice ACORN folks gave me cigarettes and a couple bucks for registering too! Although I thought registering 100 times was a bit over the top.

Registering 100 times is nice... but you can only vote once.

 

[Annie]

Registering 100 times is nice... but you can only vote once.

Maybe not with mail ins and no addresses. These were not done systematically for no reason. You know it and so do the rest of us. Who knows, the best thing that may come out of an Obama win would be the end of ACORN.

 

[DavidS]

Maybe not with mail ins and no addresses. These were not done systematically for no reason. You know it and so do the rest of us. Who knows, the best thing that may come out of an Obama win would be the end of ACORN.

First of all, we have problems with getting people to vote here in America. Out of the people who are actually registered to vote, how many actually will? Second of all, you are assuming that these people who have registered to vote a couple of dozen times are actually going to vote a couple of dozen times. There's a huge difference in registering to vote and being paid for it and actually voting. ACORN is not paying people to vote multiple times. You're assuming these people are going to be dis-honest.

Again ACORN has registered 1.3 million votes in the past year. Out of those, let's say only 1 million vote. Then let's use a really high number of registrations such as 50% of those 1 million are fraudlant. Then you have to spread it out over 12 states I think is the number that have these problems. You're talking about 41,000 votes per state could be fraudulant. The number isn't anywhere near 50%, but I'm using a very high number.

ACORN does need to be investigated, but this will not impact the general election.

 

[Annie]

First of all, we have problems with getting people to vote here in America. Out of the people who are actually registered to vote, how many actually will? Second of all, you are assuming that these people who have registered to vote a couple of dozen times are actually going to vote a couple of dozen times. There's a huge difference in registering to vote and being paid for it and actually voting. ACORN is not paying people to vote multiple times. You're assuming these people are going to be dis-honest.

Again ACORN has registered 1.3 million votes in the past year. Out of those, let's say only 1 million vote. Then let's use a really high number of registrations such as 50% of those 1 million are fraudlant. Then you have to spread it out over 12 states I think is the number that have these problems. You're talking about 41,000 votes per state could be fraudulant. The number isn't anywhere near 50%, but I'm using a very high number.

ACORN does need to be investigated, but this will not impact the general election.

And you are assuming that ACORN is incapable of using the registrations to obtain absentee ballots and mail them in. Sorry, as I keep saying, coming from Chicago, it's nothing new.

 

[DavidS]

And you are assuming that ACORN is incapable of using the registrations to obtain absentee ballots and mail them in. Sorry, as I keep saying, coming from Chicago, it's nothing new.

Even with that, that's only 30,000 additioanl votes per state. Not enough to sway the election.

 

[Annie]

Even with that, that's only 30,000 additioanl votes per state. Not enough to sway the election.

We'll see. I noticed that Ohio has decided that the SOS may do as she likes regarding the election:

Election Law @ Moritz - Information and Analysis (Sixth Circuit Panel, 2-1, Vacates Order)

Sixth Circuit Panel, 2-1, Vacates Order
Print Page
October 11, 2008

In Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, the majority ruled that the district court's order, coming so close to Election Day, was unduly disruptive and thus improper. The Republicans could have challenged the Secretary of State's procedures for verifying new voter registrations much earlier in the electoral process and thus, according to the opinion, should not be permitted such “late-game litigation.” The majority further opined that the Secretary was unlikely in violation of the Help America Vote Act. While “it would be nice if the system printed out a list of individuals . . . that did not match,” the majority concluded that “HAVA does not require that level of user-friendliness.” The dissenting judge accused the panel majority of both (1) an “astounding and deeply disturbing” “lack of concern for the integrity of the electoral process” and (2) a failure to follow the Sixth Circuit’s own internal procedures by releasing its decision before the full appeals court could rule on the matter. It is possible that the full Sixth Circuit will still do so, as a request for that action remains pending.

 

[jreeves]

The great power of the internet is being able to actually VISIT the candidate's website!

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Economy

Yep...take from taxpayers and give money directly to non-taxpayers in the form of Earned Income Tax Credits.....

So he will grow the economy by taking away success incentatives...

Great plan

 

[Zoomie1980]

During the last Presidential debate Barack Obama said that he will fix the economy from the bottom up. Does anyone know how he plans to do this? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

Presidents have virtually NO POWER to fix any domestic issue, ESPECIALLY the economy. I fail to see why the economy is even a campaign issue since neither guy can do ANYTHING about it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The way Bush and the Republicans have messed the American economy up.

There is nothing Obama could do that could make it worse.

In fact, what ever President Obama does could only make things better!!

The economy messed itself up. The government had nothing to do with it, just like it won't have anything to do with the recovery.

 

[xsited1]

If I believed that neo-con myth which hammers the steps we took to mitigate the disaster brought to us by a unregulated market, you mean?

I don't.

You can call it whatever you want, but your 'Trickle-up' fix will be a total disaster. This has actually been proven. Here's one such Harvard Study, although it is quite technical:

Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment

 

[xsited1]

Horror of all horrors that the country should have an organized fund to re-build this country's crumbling infrastrucutre. I live in New York City and all I keep hearing about is the Tappan Zee bridge. A bridge that is 50 years old and is crumbling. The cost to build a new bridge? $6.8 billion. Guess what? There's no money to replace it because New York State is suffering severe budget shortfalls right now. You know, I think I remember hearing about another bridge also falling apart and the state having no money to replace it. What was the name of it? Oh that's right! The I-35W Mississippi River bridge! Whatever happened to that bridge? Didn't it collapse killing several people?

There are already monies available to handle infrastructure on both the State and Federal level. What is being proposed is more federal oversight which is bad for the Republic. However, you have made yourself very clear that you prefer a centralized, socialistic form of government, so to you it would be a good idea.

 

[DavidS]

There are already monies available to handle infrastructure on both the State and Federal level. What is being proposed is more federal oversight which is bad for the Republic. However, you have made yourself very clear that you prefer a centralized, socialistic form of government, so to you it would be a good idea.

It's so funny, every other keyword you have is "socialism." I go on these other boards and all I see is "communism." Did we have communism or socialism under Clinton? No. You guys don't even know what the two terms stand for.

Having a stronger central government does not make you a socialist country, you idiot. The differences between giving the states more or less power is called Jeffersoniaism vs. hamiltonianism. Read your American history. Jeffersoniasm, named after Thomas Jefferson, is the idea of a weaker central government and giving the states more power. Jeffersonians have also held that the American economy should rely more on agriculture than on industry and have seen big business as a threat to democracy. In contrast, Hamiltonians, named after Alexander Hamilton, have insisted that a strong national government is needed to guide the economic development of the nation, especially its industrial development, and to restrain the excesses of the people. This eventually developed into Federalism, which is the current state of government we have right now.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

 

[NOBama]

Horror of all horrors that the country should have an organized fund to re-build this country's crumbling infrastrucutre. I live in New York City and all I keep hearing about is the Tappan Zee bridge. A bridge that is 50 years old and is crumbling. The cost to build a new bridge? $6.8 billion. Guess what? There's no money to replace it because New York State is suffering severe budget shortfalls right now.

Isn’t the Tappan Zee one of the most profitable bridges in NY State?

 

[xsited1]

It's so funny, every other keyword you have is "socialism." I go on these other boards and all I see is "communism." Did we have communism or socialism under Clinton? No. You guys don't even know what the two terms stand for.

Having a stronger central government does not make you a socialist country, you idiot. The differences between giving the states more or less power is called Jeffersoniaism vs. hamiltonianism. Read your American history. Jeffersoniasm, named after Thomas Jefferson, is the idea of a weaker central government and giving the states more power. Jeffersonians have also held that the American economy should rely more on agriculture than on industry and have seen big business as a threat to democracy. In contrast, Hamiltonians, named after Alexander Hamilton, have insisted that a strong national government is needed to guide the economic development of the nation, especially its industrial development, and to restrain the excesses of the people. This eventually developed into Federalism, which is the current state of government we have right now.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

I see you missed the point: more Federal control. I never said socialism. I merely said this direction is 'socialistic'. And, of course, you brought communism into this conversation for reasons which only you know.

 

[xsited1]

Skull, this federal fund Obama is talking about would help states with their infrastructures, not pay for it completely. We already do help states with their infrastructure, but in the form of pork barrel spending. There isn't any limit set on the amount of money the federal government can spend. This idea from Obama, will actually CUT government spending.

Hilarious!

 

[DavidS]

I see you missed the point: more Federal control. I never said socialism. I merely said this direction is 'socialistic'. And, of course, you brought communism into this conversation for reasons which only you know.

Everyone knows that socialism is just a step away from communism.

Federalism is nowhere near socialism or socialistic or anything to do with social.

 

[xsited1]

Really? Can you counter my example of what happens when consumers have more money?

I'm not sure what example you're talking about. There was another poster who talked about 'trickle-up' economics. Is that the example you're talking about?

In any case, it depends on where the money comes from. If you're a free-lunch economist (like George W. Bush's economic advisors), it doesn't matter. Consumers will spend the money and everyone will benefit. However, there is no free lunch. If it's just a redistribution of wealth, the people who make the most money will stop supporting the lazy because the government is forcing them to. Then we all get to share the misery.

 

[PeterS]

During the last Presidential debate Barack Obama said that he will fix the economy from the bottom up. Does anyone know how he plans to do this? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

Obama's tax policy will reduce capitalization and lower productivity. Over time this should shift us to a demand-push position and thereby increase wages and jobs. It will also increase inflation but if there are increases to CART we can decrease oil consumption which will offset inflation pressure from wages.

It's a crap shoot but the policy for high capitalization and productively over the past 8 years has been a bust with respect to wages and job creation so worth a try...