Where is the US economy headed?

yes..and the deficit grows exponentially. This is something we and our children will be paying off til 2020...Bush's main legacy!

Let's see when the next Republican gets in the Presidency again? Not in my lifetime..if I can help it!

0 Replies

That makes the two of us, but I'm not so sure I want Hillary at the helm at all.

0 Replies

unfortunately, the odds are pretty fair she may be at the helm in a year!. But let's hypothetically project the latest development from Iowa caucus (Obama picking up popularity) -- I wonder what it'd be like with a nearly total National and international political neophyte at the helm. I'm scared stiff. This is the absolute wrong time in history to take such a gamble.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

unfortunately, the odds are pretty fair she may be at the helm in a year!. But let's hypothetically project the latest development from Iowa caucus (Obama picking up popularity) -- I wonder what it'd be like with a nearly total National and international political neophyte at the helm. I'm scared stiff. This is the absolute wrong time in history to take such a gamble.

11 years as a con law professor, several as a state legislator and a term in the Senate - I'm not sure that's a 'neophyte.'

Someone said something the other day, about experience, which I'm sure you will understand: "Jimmy Carter has loads of foreign policy experience." Does that mean he would make a good prez? Not at all. It's not experience that matters, as much as judgment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Please re-read what I wrote. I mean that he never was in Congress for more than one term..near-neophyte.

Carter's example is a good (negative) example of neophyte National politician : his record as President was poor. Mainly because he was an outsider and his Admin/cabinet wouldn't or couldn't work with the DC insiders. His inexperience as an international player led to hostage crisis

0 Replies

I want somebody at the helm with brains and charisma; a person who will bring back diplomacy in a realistic way/world. Obama is a quick study; and he listens. I don't want somebody who thinks they deserve the oval office based on their "experience."

Obama will go in with an open mind; Hillary will not. Obama can get the best and the brightest in foreign relations/politics to advise him.

Obama is a "quick study" unlike his predecessor, and he won't be a hawk looking to start another war.

I want to see some humanity back into the president of our country without worrying about religion, torture, illegal wiretaps, habeus corpus, and taking care of our children in the US with sufficient funding for our schools and health care. Our infrastructure is in bad need of repair and maintenance; a much higher priority than spending 2.7 billion every week in Iraq and getting our military men and women killed and maimed for a goal that's not even articulated.

I'd heartily welcome a Obama in the White House.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

Please re-read what I wrote. I mean that he never was in Congress for more than one term..near-neophyte.

Carter's example is a good (negative) example of neophyte National politician : his record as President was poor. Mainly because he was an outsider and his Admin/cabinet wouldn't or couldn't work with the DC insiders. His inexperience as an international player led to hostage crisis

That's a pretty simplistic way to look at the hostage situation. It probably would have gone over somewhat better if Reagan hadn't been negotiating for the release behind his back.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

you missed the point

0 Replies

It just isn't Bush and the Republicans who are responsible for the deficit mess. This has been going on for decades under both parties. And please do not forget that it is Congress the Constitution gives the purse strings to.

It all boils down to that it is ALL of us who are responsible, for electing a bunch of jerks to BOTH the White House AND to Congress who are doing exactly what we hired them to do - lower taxes while at the same time increase government spending.

Of all the candidates of BOTH parties, the only one who has identified the monetary problem and what to do about it is Ron Paul, and we all know what his chances are.

0 Replies

Shush, Don't talk so loud you will wake up Bush.

Confused

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

you missed the point

You didn't explain it very well

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

last word freak!
Razz

0 Replies

You misunderstood my example. Carter has tons of foreign-policy experience now; would he make a good president or someone we want representing us?

Many on both sides would say no. Experience is only one factor to be looked at; judgment is just as important.

Both Bush and Clinton were National and International political neophytes, by your model.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

True enough.

However, these particular times in which we're currently involved dictate extreme caution about picking another political dud or inexperienced foreign affairs candidate. Internationally the times NOW are MOST critical. We can't keep making the same mistakes as far as Presidential election. The slope is far too steep now as world peace is precariously in the balance.

Bill Clinton's initial international experience may have helped lead USA towards the damned path on which we're now entrenched. However, I think Bill/Hillary Clinton's combined experience and intelligence may be the best scenario we can expect. Hate to call it the lesser of the evils..but...

Perhaps the evil of the lessers?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I want somebody at the helm with brains and charisma; a person who will bring back diplomacy in a realistic way/world. Obama is a quick study; and he listens. I don't want somebody who thinks they deserve the oval office based on their "experience."

Obama will go in with an open mind; Hillary will not. Obama can get the best and the brightest in foreign relations/politics to advise him.

Obama is a "quick study" unlike his predecessor, and he won't be a hawk looking to start another war.

I want to see some humanity back into the president of our country without worrying about religion, torture, illegal wiretaps, habeus corpus, and taking care of our children in the US with sufficient funding for our schools and health care. Our infrastructure is in bad need of repair and maintenance; a much higher priority than spending 2.7 billion every week in Iraq and getting our military men and women killed and maimed for a goal that's not even articulated.

I'd heartily welcome a Obama in the White House.

Just another viewpoint, ci, so don't get all defensive, but I translate your words to mean you want somebody with little experience, someone that may be a pushover internationally, someone that enemies will take advantage of big time. Also someone that might be, I'm not sure, be more sympathetic to Islamic terrorists, which is not good. Also someone that will not aggessively track terrorist communications in and out of this country, and someone that will water down efforts and means to detect future terrorist acts. Also someone that will radically expand federal funding and jurisdiction into education and health care, which are areas that will go on indefinitely in terms of entitlement spending, an area that we are already in trouble with big time in coming years. It will be someone that will sacrifice our military defense in favor of welfare and federal pork barrel spending on roads, bridges, and other such things that states should be spending on.

Just another viewpoint, ci, and reasons why you are a Democrat and other people are Republicans. By the way, as a Republican, I do not support deficit spending, I was against increased federal spending in education and the new prescription drug program, and a host of other things that need to be cut.

0 Replies

Okie: FWIW,I don't interpet CI as saying that at all. That is taking liberty with what he wrote to an extreme. There is certainly a middle ground there, but let's see what CI writes back in support of his point.

0 Replies

okie has the skill to interpret what I write in a way most people will not.

That takes a very special skill - of ignorance; he sees all the negatives and none of the positives.

0 Replies

There is certainly a middle ground there as far as listening to Islamicists (assuming there's some Islamicist who'd speak up and represent a cohesive POV...[no chance]) without acting overly-sympathetic.

What I see here is a distortion of CI's POV. I hope that is not intentional.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

Okie: FWIW,I don't interpet CI as saying that at all. That is taking liberty with what he wrote to an extreme. There is certainly a middle ground there, but let's see what CI writes back in support of his point.

ci and I have a friendly and sometimes not so friendly debate most of the time here, both using sarcasm. I was simply trying to interpret what ci sees per his idealogy into what a conservative would see happening as a result of what he predicts with Obama. What I point out is what the voters will need to decide. To put it simply, do we want more and bigger government nanny state bureaucracies and less tough foreign policy and less aggessive practices to track down and eliminate terrorists? I don't, but perhaps the majority of citizens do, we will just have to find out?

0 Replies

Among many of the mysterious phrases of ci's, I will take one phrase of ci's:

"I want to see some humanity back into the president of our country"

What kind of a statement is that? I see plenty of humanity, but if there is a need for something to fix that aspect of things, I would see the respect of life being pretty important, something that is missing in the Democratic platform. Bush stood up for humanity, and he stood up to people that have no respect toward humanity.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know