[nep321]

The only reason I could see someone voting for Obama at this point is not because they truly believe he's doing the right thing for America. Isn't it pretty damn obvious that Keynsian economics FAIL ALL THE TIME? Obama has proven this once again. I will most likely be voting Republican in 2012, unless the nominee is truly whacked out (e.g., Palin or Perry). But I would have no problem voting for Romney, Paul, Hunstman, Johnson or possibly even Cain.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Obama will likely get my vote... Not an enthusiastic vote, mind you. I might consider voting for Romney if he get's the nomination. I would also consider voting for Huntsman, but he's not getting the nomination. The rest of the Republican field has just about zero appeal.

Wow. You took the words right out of my mouth, with the exception of just one small detail...

Obama will likely get my vote... Not an enthusiastic vote, mind you. I might consider voting for Romney if he get's the nomination. I would definitely vote for Huntsman, but he's not getting the nomination. The rest of the Republican field has just about zero appeal.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by nep321

The only reason I could see someone voting for Obama at this point is not because they truly believe he's doing the right thing for America. Isn't it pretty damn obvious that Keynsian economics FAIL ALL THE TIME? Obama has proven this once again. I will most likely be voting Republican in 2012, unless the nominee is truly whacked out (e.g., Palin or Perry). But I would have no problem voting for Romney, Paul, Hunstman, Johnson or possibly even Cain.

I'm not versed enough on economics to argue the merits of Keynsian economics.... Although I have yet to see Obama call himself one. With that having been said, I thoroughly believe that government intervention in markets is necessary to prevent the mass rip-off of citizens.

Corporations left unchecked are only driven by profit, not by ethics, not by obedience to law.

In the last 30 years the upper- upper classes have garnered an even larger percentage of overall wealth, while contributing significantly less to the economy overall.

We need a more interventionist approach, not a more hands off approach.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I'm not versed enough on economics to argue the merits of Keynsian economics.... Although I have yet to see Obama call himself one. With that having been said, I thoroughly believe that government intervention in markets is necessary to prevent the mass rip-off of citizens.

Corporations left unchecked are only driven by profit, not by ethics, not by obedience to law.

In the last 30 years the upper- upper classes have garnered an even larger percentage of overall wealth, while contributing significantly less to the economy overall.

We need a more interventionist approach, not a more hands off approach.

I understand your point and agree that the huge unbalance in wealth is a problem. We need some regulations, indeed. But what I meant by Keynsian Economics is the idea that spending and creating debt to resolve problems rarely ever works. In fact, it never worked at the federal level in the U.S. I'm talking about things like the stimulus bill and this new jobs bill Obama is pushing. Did the first stimulus bill really enrich the lives of Americans, save the economy and create jobs? No. Why would the jobs bill suddenly work?

[Snort]

Thank God for central Maine! As well as most of northern and western NY State. May you multiply and conquer Mr. Fast & Furious, Solar Crony, Teleprompter Expert.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Jpierpont

I vote for Obama last time mainly because he was the kinda Black guy. I'm a rather racial fellow. Not sure if thats enough for me to throw my vote to him again this election. I'm writing in Howard Taft. lol

Your not alone, I imagine thousands of people who never voted before or cared about much politically, voted for him.

But its done now, we've had a Black President, he sucks just as much as Bush did, just sucks on different things. This country NEEDS Ron Paul.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Corporations left unchecked are only driven by profit, not by ethics, not by obedience to law.

In the last 30 years the upper- upper classes have garnered an even larger percentage of overall wealth, while contributing significantly less to the economy overall.

We need a more interventionist approach, not a more hands off approach.

I dont think we need a MORE inteventionist aproach at all. After all our greatest growth, going from **** poor farmers to the wealthiest country on earth with arguably the best quality of life on the planet came about with almost no intervention. Certainly some control is needed but not more. What we need to learn is to let things die when they stop being profitable.
It makes zero sense to spend money collected to run the nation on failing corporations, be they banks or car makers. Let the successful succeed & the failures fail & let the chips fall where they may.

Instead we intervened & rewarded people with failing businesses with tax dollars so they could keep being rich. Kinda like we reward a failing Congress & President with pay checks & bennies most of us can only dream of for running the country into the ground.

Again, we NEED Ron Paul.

[Beeker2211]

Nep,

Any proof that Keynesian policies have always failed? I'm pretty sure the Interstate System has been more or less a booming part of commerce in America. Also, Keynes just applied what businesses do all the time to what the government can do in times of incredible tightening of commercial and personal credit: invest with credit for the future.

Originally Posted by nep321

Did the first stimulus bill really enrich the lives of Americans, save the economy and create jobs? No. Why would the jobs bill suddenly work?

Actually it was a success, by and large. The problem with your type of thinking is that it completely ignored the breadth of the situation and the need for it to get better immediately. While I don't think that its' an unworthy goal as there has been incredible pain it doesn't seem possible when $12T of asset value evaporated, a lot of it being home value and retirement funds. As well, roughly 1/2 of the Stimulus was outright tax cuts, which proved (in a long line) to be ineffectual in creating real and permanent wealth.

Tinknocker,

You say that people that voted for Obama never paid much attention to politics before voting, which in all likelihood may be true, but then say the country "needs" Ron Paul. Are you serious? The man has absolutely no idea what he is talking about in terms of economic or monetary issues. Basically, his primary understanding of these issues is a friggin novel. While I like some of his policy points, his main thrust is so completely black and white to what is a genuinely 256 colour set I'd never vote for him. Which begs the question, how is your hope for your guy different then Obama's supporters for theirs?

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

I dont think we need a MORE inteventionist aproach at all. After all our greatest growth, going from **** poor farmers to the wealthiest country on earth with arguably the best quality of life on the planet came about with almost no intervention.

Actually, it came with a LOT of intervention. There was reconstruction, forcing wages to be paid to former slaves that had no income before (although share cropping took a lot of that away). This was the era of Teddy Roosevelt for god's sake.

And you're confusing the greatest growth rates: it wasn't ante-bellum era to WWI (which is what you're talking about) it was the generations after WWII. In terms of PPP and QOL of course.

[basehead617]

I can't believe i'm dipping into a political thread again, but seeing the colored U.S. maps that always make it look like the country is tremendously right-wing definitely get my goat.

This type of cartogram map is much more representative of an election. Can't ignore population densities.



Edit: and yes I know this ignores the individual districts like the other map.. =P

[basehead617]

That said, as an Obama voter, I've been underwhelmed.

I think he is a good man and has good intentions for the country. However, I think his ideas for what it would take to push things forward (both domestically and internationally), were politically quite naive. That's where I think people who second-guessed his lack of experience were correct. Though, you can't say that then go back and say you want someone totally outside politics to jump into the fray. It's a political job, not a business management job. A CEO pretty much always gets his way. I can see someone with that background stomping around like a little kid dealing with the vagaries of the office. I can already imagine the future photos of 'angry Hermain Cain' in office.

I think many people believed we were ready for someone to mend the divide between left and right that turned into a huge gulf during 2000-2008, but it was actually probably the WORST possible time for someone like Obama to come along. The political class was just starting to roll up its sleeves and fight dirty - nobody was in any mood to compromise.

The relative weakness of the presidency in our modern democratic republic has presented itself..

If you want a king, you're in the wrong country

As for the election. To say the republican field doesn't look too appealing is a vast understatement.

I may sit the next one out.