Obama vs. McCain (Washington, Clinton, Republic: rent, homes, school)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

I take it that would be the same candidate, who when brought up the NAFTA superhighway, was heckled by the mainstream media, who accused him of being a "conspiracy theorist", even though said highway is already under construction?

I had the great pleasure of listening to Ron Paul speak to a large gathering in Concord, NH several months ago. The crowd was in agreement with nearly every single point that he made, and he accurately predicted the economic problems this country was facing way before anyone else did. He was not really in favor of the way things were going in Iraq primarilly because of the huge monetary costs that were spent there. This in turn has been driving up our budget defecit. No one would argue that Bush has spend a "spend and borrow" president on just about everything. (Paul) may be classified as a "Repbulican," but he is a strict constitutionalist, and independent minded. I also like the fact that he doesn't take a "partisan" stance on most issues, but offers his own educated and informed opinion. Unfortunately, he will not get many votes at all. The two party system is driving this country apart in my opinion, and I don't think EITHER presidential candidate is paying attention to issues that are facing Americans today. We here NO talk about our borders, NAFTA, the continuous outsourcing of jobs my corporations, etc. I think Ron Paul is a solid candidate for the presidency, but his views were not given a fair shake by the mainstream media.

PS: the Republican party of today has been hijacked by the southern conservative faction. That is why McCain caved in and went with Palin as his running mate. If McCain chose a more moderate pick for his VP I would feel more comfortable with him. However, I don't at this point.

[ShadowCaver]

Reopening this thread, due to the civil, open, and honest discussions/debates between the members herein. Thanks...

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I had the great pleasure of listening to Ron Paul speak to a large gathering in Concord, NH several months ago. The crowd was in agreement with nearly every single point that he made, and he accurately predicted the economic problems this country was facing way before anyone else did. He was not really in favor of the way things were going in Iraq primarilly because of the huge monetary costs that were spent there. This in turn has been driving up our budget defecit. No one would argue that Bush has spend a "spend and borrow" president on just about everything. (Paul) may be classified as a "Repbulican," but he is a strict constitutionalist, and independent minded. I also like the fact that he doesn't take a "partisan" stance on most issues, but offers his own educated and informed opinion. Unfortunately, he will not get many votes at all. The two party system is driving this country apart in my opinion, and I don't think EITHER presidential candidate is paying attention to issues that are facing Americans today. We here NO talk about our borders, NAFTA, the continuous outsourcing of jobs my corporations, etc. I think Ron Paul is a solid candidate for the presidency, but his views were not given a fair shake by the mainstream media.

PS: the Republican party of today has been hijacked by the southern conservative faction. That is why McCain caved in and went with Palin as his running mate. If McCain chose a more moderate pick for his VP I would feel more comfortable with him. However, I don't at this point.

I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, mainly due to those reasons. Instead of just trying to get elected, he has his principals and stands by them. However, this is also why he didn't get the nomination. He was also the only candidate who really understands the financial system in this country, the corporate/special interest stranglehold on our government, and how the war in Iraq was not a good idea for reasons other than simply "war is wrong". I seriously considered voting for him in the primaries but went with Bill Richardson instead, as I think Ron Paul's idea of a much smaller federal government is a too small for my tastes, as I'd worry about things like federal environmental protection laws, federal education funding, and a lot of other federal programs that are worthwhile getting cut.

I have a very hard time voting for a lot of Republican candidates due to the moral-conservative position many in the party have taken. I disagree with them on nearly every social issue. I am not a fan of Sarah Palin at all, although picking her really did seem to energize the moral-conservative Republican base, so as far as getting elected goes, it was a good move for them to take.

But yeah, with either candidate, in 4 years we'll still have NAFTA, we'll still have jobs being outsourced, and we'll still be progressing towards a service-only economy, unless our economy and currency value continue to plummet (and oil prices rise backup), which would start to reverse globalization.

[tambre]

Could somebody explain the basics of NAFTA, what you think the pros and cons are. Is it based on taxing imports/exports, or giving other incentives to countries to trade with us? What is good about it, what is bad about it, how does it affect outsourcing of jobs?


Borrowed this from another thread...Jefferson wrote this 200 years ago! Seems like someone could have written this today.


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."-Thomas Jefferson

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

can someone here who has more knowledge than I do about these things tell me of a time when one party controlled both the white house and congress and its negative consequences

Clinton in 1993-1994:
- horrible NAFTA negotiations and enactment that favored companies making money in exchange for jobs being shifted out of the country. The Northeast & Midwest manufacturing workers shouldn't ignore this one..
- Government got involved in mortgage industry with the CRA risky loan quotas required of banks just weeks before Republicans took majority in January of 1995.
- Dismantling of the military.. a lot of service members were expecting to continue their career for their country, but were suddenly forced into retirement. I know this aspect of the Democrat Congress + Clinton presidency well.

Bush in 2001-2006:
- Tax cuts that applied to virtually everyone, including the middle class.
- Spending that was way out of control, but still continued with Democrat-majority Congress in 2007 & 2008.
- Homeland Security & Patriot Act.

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by tambre

Could somebody explain the basics of NAFTA, what you think the pros and cons are. Is it based on taxing imports/exports, or giving other incentives to countries to trade with us? What is good about it, what is bad about it, how does it affect outsourcing of jobs?

Sept. 14, 1993, with Democrat-majority Congress, Clinton stated that NAFTA would create over a million US jobs within 5 years:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/archives/...dents-on-NAFTA

However, H. Ross Perot predicted the "giant sucking sound" of US jobs heading to Mexico (and other lower-income countries) if NAFTA were enacted. He was right:
The high price of 'free' trade

There are far too many lopsided free-trade deals the US has ridiculously "negotiated" at the detriment of our country's well-being. Look at South Korea. We imported 700,000 Daewoos and Kias in 2007, and only shipped 6,000 US-made cars to South Korea. That resulted in 80% of a $13 billion trade deficit with the country.

The job loss isn't just lower-wage and manufacturing jobs though. Many middle and higher paying tech jobs have been outsourced to India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, and other countries where companies can save money by paying foreign workers a fraction of what they would cost on the US market.

The problem is that free trade reduces taxation on companies to increase their profits at the cost of American jobs. In theory, companies would use these profits to hire more employees, as Clinton had stated in 1993, but the reality is that these companies use these profits to relocate offices overseas in countries with lower tax rates and lower cost of employees. Clinton enacted NAFTA to improve the "economy" under his watch, but it only helped increase the gap between the rich and the poor - something Democrats like to say only Bush is doing! The only economy improved is actual company profits and stock exchange values, not the underlying economy of the work force.

Originally Posted by tambre

Borrowed this from another thread...Jefferson wrote this 200 years ago! Seems like someone could have written this today.


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."-Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson would love Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who instituted the Federal Reserve Bank into the US government with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The purpose was to lessen the severity of financial panics and provide a far more stable banking system for the country. The major argument against it is that it provides a ton of power to relatively few people...

[DeeLaP]

Why are you people writing about politics? I thought this entire forum was to write about the various areas, cities, etc. of the states?

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by DeeLaP

Why are you people writing about politics? I thought this entire forum was to write about the various areas, cities, etc. of the states?

You're in the one political thread in the Missouri forum for those of us who have a vested interest in the state. You saw the thread title.. don't read it if you don't want to be involved in the discussion. Every other thread out there is what you're looking for.

And there IS a political forum, along with many non-geographic forums, on City-Data.. we're just using this one thread to keep it localized.

[tambre]

Okay,

Anyway, back to NAFTA... from the Clinton Speech, there appeared to be bipartisan support, with Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford and Clinton all in agreement that it would be successful. How does this affect Missouri today? Has there been a large decrease in manufacturing jobs here? If so, have they been replaced by a different industry?

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by tambre

Okay,

Anyway, back to NAFTA... from the Clinton Speech, there appeared to be bipartisan support, with Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford and Clinton all in agreement that it would be successful. How does this affect Missouri today? Has there been a large decrease in manufacturing jobs here? If so, have they been replaced by a different industry?

There was bi-partisan support and previous support from Bush Sr's "fast-track" NAFTA plan that Mexico and Canada heavily supported. My issue is that the entire NAFTA deal was rushed without knowledge from the US workers, claiming it'll "help our economy" doesn't mean that it won't ship jobs to Canada/Mexico in order for US companies to make more money. That's what happened, and continues to happen. How does this affect Missouri? How about the closure of one of Fenton's Crysler plants with another few thousand jobs lost? While I know there are plants in Canada, and I believe Mexico as well, that could have been closed instead, but they're more cost-efficient since workers cost less.
For another example, NAFTA also allows a majority of the Volkswagen models assembled in Mexico to be sold in the US without a significant import tariff. If we're going to sell a car in Germany, expect a hefty import tax. Deals like these hurt US workers to save companies an extra buck.

Edit:
*ANY* bill that has Carter's approval deserves to have heavy scrutiny. That man was perhaps the most useless president our country has had.