The Next President of the USA will be?

[TULedHead]

Hey Hermit, since when did you start supporting war-mongers like Edwards!!!

John Edwards on the war in Iraq

[Hermit]

Hey Hermit, since when did you start supporting war-mongers like Edwards!!!

John Edwards on the war in Iraq

oh, puh-lease. He's not a war-monger.

If he was, he'd be your candidate of choice.

I'll be the first to admit that Edwards does have his flaws. Check it out,..

..up there by the part.. he's got a hair out of place for fucks sake!

Anyway,..

I respect the fact that he's admitted that his war resolution vote was a MISTAKE.

Btw..

You're a staunch and vocal cheer-supporter [ ] of the Iraq war, TUled.

Remind me again,.. when're ya being deployed for your next tour of duty on Iraq?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Hermit

[Del Zeppnile]

I'm not gonna get into that dead-end discussion with you (yet again), but I will say this though: I'm for capitalism, but I'm not for 'unfettered' capitalism. Its a simple truth that big business requires regulation as a means of protecting consumers, and right now in or current healthcare system insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are out of control and politicians with an eye of becoming politicians-turned-lobbyists are helping them.. at the expense of.. to the detriment of.. the consuming (and would-be consuming if they could afford it) public. What's happening in the healthcare system right now is shameful and.. yes.. immoral.

Well, I'm just going to have to disagree with the notion that big government is the cure, or in anyway capable of making things better. Show me where that ever happens.

[Hermit]

MSNBC has just projected Romney as the winner in Michigan.

for the record, Michigan dem voters had no influence on the outcome.

[TULedHead]

Michigan got it right! Go Mitt!

[bigstickbonzo]

Another one bites the dust...

ba ba ba

ba ba ba baba

[Nathan]

manderlyh for president.

Works for me...

Can anyone give me the current results in Michigan for ALL the candidates on the ballot (not just the winners)?

Thanks.

[kirchzep27]

I just saw -the colbert report for the first time in awhile and caught their slogan: -indecision 08/dont fuck this up america.

[wanna be drummer]

You don't need a "businessman" running things, wanna be. A "businessman" will most likely be mostly interested in the bottom line: profits. Its the bottom-line mentality that has led to Michigan being in the economic crisis its in (highest unemployment rate in the nation). Michigan's middle class has been abandoned; manufacturing jobs have been 'outsourced' overseas to countries where costs are lower. Sure, that policy is good for profits (as any businessman will tell you), but its a not good for middle class workers in Michigan and its not good for middle class workers throughout America. Simply put, its not good for America.

Profits yes, but let's say we didn't have Granholm as president and instead had DeVos. His job as governor would've been to get the state to run again, which would mean helping provide jobs for us, somthign Granholm seems uninterested in...(off-topic but it's only a matter of time until she decides to sell our water). She's the worst thing to happen to this state since...well our last governor, except she's worse.

I'm amazed people think Democrats have the ability to run an economy

It truly amazes me that you live in Michigan and have seen up-close of the disastrous results that outsourcing has had on your state's economy, and yet you're still looking to the republican party.. the party of big-business interests.. for a solution. It simply doesn't make any sense. If you want a candidate who will look out for the interests of middle class Americans.. then John Edwards is the candidate you ought to be taking a closer look at.

Hermit, I don't think Edwards, (or any major Dem. player) has a decent plan to return the American middle class to its status. That being said, I don't think Romney will help much either. But I think we've grown desperate enough in this state that we'll take ANY jobs that come our way, be they white-collar or blue-collar or collarless. We just need income, and I think Republicans have the best plans to get those jobs to us. Well, personally, I'd rather have a libertarian in as President or governor, but we all know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

FYI.. Mitt Romney supports outsourcing; that should tell all you need to know about what he'd do to help restore Michigan's middle class: nothing. Whatever he would do would be in support of big business interests. As far as John McCain goes, he's not interested in rebuilding America's manufacturing middle class, rather he likes to talk about 're-training displaced workers'. He's missing the point that without a vibrant manufacturing middle class, Michigan's (and America's) economy will never be strong. Republican candidates like to insist the economy is strong. You know thats not the case in Michigan, and as far as the overall American economy goes, all one need do is look at the ever-declining value of the dollar. That says it all.

I don't support Romney in anyway, believe me. I'm no fan of outsourcing obviouslly. But I think he knows enough about turning around "businesses" that he could make us profitable again, in the sense that he could bring unemployment down and increase the value of our dollar.

Oh and Hermit, our economy nationwise I mean) could be a LOT worse off right now. I think it's doing just fine

Oh yeah, I like McCains idea of retraining our workforce. Too many Michiganders think they can blow through high school and land a job in building cars or whatnot, which is clearly no longer an option. But thats the mentality that people with manufacturing jobs have and thats the mentality they're giving their kids. It's time to teach them a new way to do things. One way to do that, drop an english credit in high school and make a finance class mandatory. Or drop a gym requirement. Whatever it takes. Teach kids what to do with their money. Also, theres way too many photojournalists in the state, not enough nurses. Promote nursing classes maybe? Our manufacturing jobs AREN'T coming back, its a simple fact. McCain's right. But we can live without them if we try and learn how to handle new responsibilities.

But yeah,.. at least you got the Red Wings.

Hellz yea!

But did you see last nights game? We gave up a HAT TRICK!!

Edited January 17, 2008 by wanna be drummer

[Hermit]

I'm amazed people think Democrats have the ability to run an economy

1990's. Booming economy. Clinton administration in office.

Undoubtedly there will be those who claim Clinton's policies were not responsible for the prospering economy the 90's, but the fact remains the economy boomed while a democrat held the office of POTUS. The Clinton administration inherited a sagging economy and a huge deficit which were left behind by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Under the Clinton administration the economy boomed, the deficit was eliminated, and a surplus was created. Under Bush II the economy has again gone into decline and the deficit has ballooned. Connect the dots, bud.

Hermit, I don't think Edwards, (or any major Dem. player) has a decent plan to return the American middle class to its status.

I tend to doubt youve even looked at Edwards (or the other dems') plan. Have you?

What about it makes you think it can't benefit, and restore, America's middle class?

I'm guessing, wanna be, that you were born into a republican family and thats probably the only perspective you've ever known or considered. I'm guessing you've probably never been willing to give the democratic party an open-minded look to see what their values actually are; instead you assume the democratic party values are that which you've been indoctrinated to believe they are. Am I wrong about that? Have you ever taken a truly open-minded look at the democratic party, its candidates, and their policies?

That being said, I don't think Romney will help much either. But I think we've grown desperate enough in this state that we'll take ANY jobs that come our way, be they white-collar or blue-collar or collarless. We just need income, and I think Republicans have the best plans to get those jobs to us. Well, personally, I'd rather have a libertarian in as President or governor, but we all know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Do you know what the centerpiece of John McCain's economic stimulus plan is? Tax cuts for corporations. I shit you not. Its the same old tried-and-failed trickle down economics we've seen from previous republicans. Trickle-down benefits the rich, hurts the middle and lower classes, and never actually stimulates the economy. As far as raising up the middle class goes, it didn't happen under Reagan's trickle-down economics, it didn't happen under GH Bush's trickle-down economics, and sure as shit hasn't happened under Dubya's trickle-down economics. And yet you think trickle-down economics will work under McCain, eh?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

~ Albert Einstein

John Edwards, and the other dem candidates (but Edwards moreso than the others), want to raise taxes (rescind the Bush tax cuts, actually) on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans and want to give tax breaks to those who truly need them: middle and lower class Americans. Bottom-up economics, not trickle-down voodoo economics, is what will stimulate the economy and will benefit those who are currently struggling to make ends meet: middle class Americans.

Oh and Hermit, our economy nationwise I mean) could be a LOT worse off right now. I think it's doing just fine

Sure, the wealthiest Americans.. most of whom derive a good part of their income from investments are doing "just fine". But middle class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living has risen drastically but incomes have not.. for middle class Americans, that is.

I think your "just fine" perspective would be quite different if you weren't living with your

parents and you had to support yourself, and maybe a family, on a middle class income.

Oh, and btw,.. dont be fooled by the national unemployment rate. The unemployment rate may be relatively low but what that measure doesn't tell you is what kind of jobs people have. Many middle class people who used to have jobs that could support a family and of which they could make a career have had to settle for jobs that pay significantly less due to the fact that their manufacturing jobs have been outsourced. Good bye GM job, hello McDonalds. As far as the unemployment rate is concerned, that person is employed. But his simply being employed does not reflect the hit he and his family have taken in their standard of living, and it doesn't reflect the economic hardships he and his family now face.

This is happening not just in Michigan but throughout America. Its more pronounced in Michigan because of the high concentration of automotive industry manufacturing jobs that used to be "driving" the economy in Michigan that are now overseas. But don't kid yourself, its not just happening in Michigan, its happening throughout America.

Oh yeah, I like McCains idea of retraining our workforce. Too many Michiganders think they can blow through high school and land a job in building cars or whatnot, which is clearly no longer an option.

I'm all for education, but I thoroughly dispute your (and John McCain's) claim that manufacturing cars in America is "no longer an option"/the manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Thats not necessarily true. Manufacturing jobs absolutely could (and should) come back. Its simply a matter of priorities. Is the priority bottom-line profit-driven economics for auto companies and energy companies (in which case American gas-powered cars will continue to be manufactured in other countries)? Or is the priority the re-building the American manufacturing middle class (in which case those manufacturing jobs are brought back to America)?

We're on the cusp of an automative/energy revolution, bro. Automobile designs are going to be moving away from fossil fuel powered engines to engines that run on alternative fuel sources. Think what that could mean to the economy of Michigan if the auto industry grabbed this bull by the horns, took the lead in the automobile/energy revolution, and started designing and building cars in America (Detroit) again? Michigan would benefit. America's middle class would benefit. America would benefit. [And the big corporations would be just a bit less obscenely profitable. Boo hoo. ]

Its so obvious which party is on the right side of this issue. The repubs support Big Oil and want to slow the transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources so Big Oil can continue to maximize profits.. all the while giving big corporations more and more tax breaks. The democrats want to give America back to the middle class; want to lead the way in the energy revolution (a-la the Apollo project of the 1960's), and want to keep big corporations from benefitting at the expense of America's hard-working and much-struggling middle class.

Aint it obvious, bud?

Take an open-minded look at what Edwards is proposing, bro. Edwards, moreso than any

other candidate.. from either party.., is focused on the interests of America's middle class.

Thats a fact.

"In my entire time in public life, I have never taken a

dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC..."

~John Edwards, January 5, 2008.

*You Can't "Nice" These People*

*Fighting Powerful Interest*

[StringBender]

1990's. Booming economy. Clinton administration in office.

Undoubtedly there will be those who claim Clinton's policies were not responsible for the prospering economy the 90's, but the fact remains the economy boomed while a democrat held the office of POTUS. The Clinton administration inherited a sagging economy and a huge deficit which were left behind by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Under the Clinton administration the economy boomed, the deficit was eliminated, and a surplus was created. Under Bush II the economy has again gone into decline and the deficit has ballooned. Connect the dots, bud.

Shows you just how much you had invested in the market during Clinton's last year and a half in office when the market went downhill.....fast. Happened on Clinton's watch. Those like you who possibly didn't have much in at the time don't remember....those like me who did.....do remember....quite well.

The biggest contributor to the whole 90's "booming economy" was people dumping billions of dollars into anyone and everyone who had a dot-com to pitch. As a result of a booming market the entire economy benefited...then when people realized that a grocery store dot-com was really dumb then it all came tumbling down....on Clinton's watch. Not Dubya.....not a Republican.

But of course had Albert Gore not invented the internet the 90's booming economy would've never happened either so maybe we can credit the Clinton administration.

[Bong-Man]

Shows you just how much you had invested in the market during Clinton's last year and a half in office when the market went downhill.....fast. Happened on Clinton's watch. Those like you who possibly didn't have much in at the time don't remember....those like me who did.....do remember....quite well.

The biggest contributor to the whole 90's "booming economy" was people dumping billions of dollars into anyone and everyone who had a dot-com to pitch. As a result of a booming market the entire economy benefited...then when people realized that a grocery store dot-com was really dumb then it all came tumbling down....on Clinton's watch. Not Dubya.....not a Republican.

But of course had Albert Gore not invented the internet the 90's booming economy would've never happened either so maybe we can credit the Clinton administration.

Wow ! A Republican makes a post about the 90's economy under Clinton and not one time is Ronald Reagan mentioned. I'm proud of you Stringy. It's taken almost a whole decade to get past using that crutch, but you made it.

And what are you really complaining about ? All that little dip meant was that you could buy more shares cheaper with money you probably won't actually need for quite some time anyway. Rejoice !

[StringBender]

Wow ! A Republican makes a post about the 90's economy under Clinton and not one time is Ronald Reagan mentioned. I'm proud of you Stringy. It's taken almost a whole decade to get past using that crutch, but you made it.

And what are you really complaining about ? All that little dip meant was that you could buy more shares cheaper with money you probably won't actually need for quite some time anyway. Rejoice !

Buy low, my man....buy low!

[MS1]

Shows you just how much you had invested in the market during Clinton's last year and a half in office when the market went downhill.....fast. Happened on Clinton's watch. Those like you who possibly didn't have much in at the time don't remember....those like me who did.....do remember....quite well.

The biggest contributor to the whole 90's "booming economy" was people dumping billions of dollars into anyone and everyone who had a dot-com to pitch. As a result of a booming market the entire economy benefited...then when people realized that a grocery store dot-com was really dumb then it all came tumbling down....on Clinton's watch. Not Dubya.....not a Republican.

But of course had Albert Gore not invented the internet the 90's booming economy would've never happened either so maybe we can credit the Clinton administration.

Okay, fine, Clinton gets no credit for the economic boom of the 90's. So I suppose it falls to us to see if we can replicate the circumstances of that economic upturn. Are we in a similar situation? Well, let's see. Multiple terms of laissez-faire Republican rule . . . check. Sagging economy and a crippled middle class . . . check.

Apparently all we have to do now to make history repeat itself is elect a Democrat.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Magic Sam

[StringBender]

Okay, fine, Clinton gets no credit for the economic boom of the 90's. :

When and where did I say that, Nancy?

Just saying that when you give credit to Clinton for the "booming economy" of the 90's then you had better give him credit for the downfall as well because the boom was over and crashing the last couple years of his administration.

That's a fact....I remember it well.....as does my wallet.

[wanna be drummer]

1990's. Booming economy. Clinton administration in office.

Undoubtedly there will be those who claim Clinton's policies were not responsible for the prospering economy the 90's, but the fact remains the economy boomed while a democrat held the office of POTUS. The Clinton administration inherited a sagging economy and a huge deficit which were left behind by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Under the Clinton administration the economy boomed, the deficit was eliminated, and a surplus was created. Under Bush II the economy has again gone into decline and the deficit has ballooned. Connect the dots, bud.

I'm not going to say that Clinton doesn't deserve some credit...indeed he does.

My personal belief (I've said this before, and it applies to Reagan and Clinton and Roosevelt and Carter) is that presidents get too much credit for the economy, whether it be good credit or bad. Presidents who reside in times of harsh economic times are remembered for hurting the economy even though they don't have as much control over it as they thought. Same goes for presidents who reside in times of good economic matters.

I tend to doubt youve even looked at Edwards (or the other dems') plan. Have you?

What about it makes you think it can't benefit, and restore, America's middle class?

He's got a plan for getting everybody in college. He has plans for universal health care. Both, I would argue, hurt the middle class than help it. We'd all end up paying more in taxes anyways because health cares a bitch to pay (even for the government) as well as colleges. If I got a full ride from the government, sure I'd be happy. But if everybody did? How much would that cost the government and where do you think they're gonna get that money from?

I'm guessing, wanna be, that you were born into a republican family and thats probably the only perspective you've ever known or considered. I'm guessing you've probably never been willing to give the democratic party an open-minded look to see what their values actually are; instead you assume the democratic party values are that which you've been indoctrinated to believe they are. Am I wrong about that? Have you ever taken a truly open-minded look at the democratic party, its candidates, and their policies?

You're right about one thing Hermit, my family is more or less Republican (Not necessarily me but my parents are). However, I didn't learn Republican economic values from my parents. I've never discussed politics with them until maybe last year or so. I've developed my own sense of what I'd like to see in the economy and what I'm for and against in governmental policies. I read a lot Hermit. I read the newspaper, I read biographies, I read news sites. I know what the Democratic party has to offer, I'm simply not for it.

Do you know what the centerpiece of John McCain's economic stimulus plan is? Tax cuts for corporations. I shit you not. Its the same old tried-and-failed trickle down economics we've seen from previous republicans. Trickle-down benefits the rich, hurts the middle and lower classes, and never actually stimulates the economy. As far as raising up the middle class goes, it didn't happen under Reagan's trickle-down economics, it didn't happen under GH Bush's trickle-down economics, and sure as shit hasn't happened under Dubya's trickle-down economics. And yet you think trickle-down economics will work under McCain, eh?

Trickle down economics would help Ford and GM and Chrysler so yes I'm for it. They're losing billions every single quarter! If they caught some breaks I'd be fine with it. Ron Gettlefinger isn't helping though. Ford's new car, the Verve, was talked about being built in Michigan. Instead, Gettlefinger said that his workers wouldn't be making enough. Well ok Ron, now they get nothing instead. He was quoted as saying "If we worked for nothing, maybe they'd build it here." His men/women are making more and getting more benefits than some of my own personal friends' parents are. The Unions are not helping.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

~ Albert Einstein

Thats assuming nothing's changed. Right now, three car employers are dying and taxes aren't exactly going to keep them afloat, although normally I'd agree with you.

John Edwards, and the other dem candidates (but Edwards moreso than the others), want to raise taxes (rescind the Bush tax cuts, actually) on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans and want to give tax breaks to those who truly need them: middle and lower class Americans. Bottom-up economics, not trickle-down voodoo economics, is what will stimulate the economy and will benefit those who are currently struggling to make ends meet: middle class Americans.

And I agree that theres not problem with that. But the Dems in my state aren't doing either. Nobodys getting any trickling except the government here. The people are getting more taxes. Our ski slopes are taxed so much that it costs more to ski here than it does in COLORADO!!!

Sure, the wealthiest Americans.. most of whom derive a good part of their income from investments are doing "just fine". But middle class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living has risen drastically but incomes have not.. for middle class Americans, that is.

I think your "just fine" perspective would be quite different if you weren't living with your

parents and you had to support yourself, and maybe a family, on a middle class income.

Not exactly fair Hermit. You could go to any point in human history where country is doing fine and say that "it'd be different if you were in their shoes." The argument is about how many people are doing bad (and I agree it's rising) but the economy will turn around. It always does.

Oh, and btw,.. dont be fooled by the national unemployment rate. The unemployment rate may be relatively low but what that measure doesn't tell you is what kind of jobs people have. Many middle class people who used to have jobs that could support a family and of which they could make a career have had to settle for jobs that pay significantly less due to the fact that their manufacturing jobs have been outsourced. Good bye GM job, hello McDonalds. As far as the unemployment rate is concerned, that person is employed. But his simply being employed does not reflect the hit he and his family have taken in their standard of living, and it doesn't reflect the economic hardships he and his family now face.

You don't think I know that? And how did the government go about trying to fix that? We increased the minimum wage..

All that did was help out high schoolers and part-time college kids. Most of my friends were really happy when that happened because they'd be making more money. Instead, small business were hurt (as if they aren't doing bad enough) because they can't afford to give their employees any more than what it was.

[wanna be drummer]

This is happening not just in Michigan but throughout America. Its more pronounced in Michigan because of the high concentration of automotive industry manufacturing jobs that used to be "driving" the economy in Michigan that are now overseas. But don't kid yourself, its not just happening in Michigan, its happening throughout America.

Agreed.

I'm all for education, but I thoroughly dispute your (and John McCain's) claim that manufacturing cars in America is "no longer an option"/the manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Thats not necessarily true. Manufacturing jobs absolutely could (and should) come back. Its simply a matter of priorities. Is the priority bottom-line profit-driven economics for auto companies and energy companies (in which case American gas-powered cars will continue to be manufactured in other countries)? Or is the priority the re-building the American manufacturing middle class (in which case those manufacturing jobs are brought back to America)?

Hermit, CEOs are generally evil people, we all know this to be true. So unless you want to force them to keep making their goods in America, they will not. Simple as that. And since the unions would rather not let their members work peiod, rather than accept the pay cut, companies will continue to move outside the US. I don't think it'll change unless every country in the world decides to change their minimum wage standards to ours, in which case their employees would make what we make. Then it'd be cheaper to make goods here to avoid shipping costs. But like I said, doubtful

We're on the cusp of an automative/energy revolution, bro. Automobile designs are going to be moving away from fossil fuel powered engines to engines that run on alternative fuel sources. Think what that could mean to the economy of Michigan if the auto industry grabbed this bull by the horns, took the lead in the automobile/energy revolution, and started designing and building cars in America (Detroit) again? Michigan would benefit. America's middle class would benefit. America would benefit. [And the big corporations would be just a bit less obscenely profitable. Boo hoo. ]

This is where I split from the Republicans. I'm all for green. Not entirely for the environment, but because in the long run it benefits everyone financially. But I don't see companies, even green companies, staying in the US if they can make the same goods for 1000% cheaper in Africa

Its so obvious which party is on the right side of this issue. The repubs support Big Oil and want to slow the transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources so Big Oil can continue to maximize profits.. all the while giving big corporations more and more tax breaks. The democrats want to give America back to the middle class; want to lead the way in the energy revolution (a-la the Apollo project of the 1960's), and want to keep big corporations from benefitting at the expense of America's hard-working and much-struggling middle class.

Aint it obvious, bud?

Methinks you give politicians too much credit for honesty. You really think Democrat politicians are that much more noble than Republicans?

Take an open-minded look at what Edwards is proposing, bro. Edwards, moreso than any

other candidate.. from either party.., is focused on the interests of America's middle class.

Thats a fact.

"In my entire time in public life, I have never taken a

dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC..."

~John Edwards, January 5, 2008.

*You Can't "Nice" These People*

*Fighting Powerful Interest*

Hermit...he lost bud. He could be as truthful as Ron Paul and as charismatic as Barack, but he's done. Sorry to burst your bubble dude

Had to make this two pages unfortunately

[feather in the wind]

once again, DIEBOLD (LIEBOLD) is at it's best. it's already hapenning again. why let liebold in again? didn't you learn the first time, and the secomd time (yes, bush stole both terms he served, what a prick)

freaking fraud elections. impeach the whole lot of them! every last one of them, or revolt!!!!!!!!!

wake up, save your country before it's too late, or is it too late?

this would NEVER haoppen in canada, we don't like our primeminister, we boot him the hell OUT!

i'm becoming upset now. time to stop. i hate bush!! he's a fucking asshole, period.

oh and congress are a bunch of pussies too. or are they neocons? hmm.

sorry for the language, but it fits here. i become very angry when the people of a country sit back and let this shit happen.

[Hermit]

I'm not going to say that Clinton doesn't deserve some credit...indeed he does.

My personal belief (I've said this before, and it applies to Reagan and Clinton and Roosevelt and Carter) is that presidents get too much credit for the economy, whether it be good credit or bad. Presidents who reside in times of harsh economic times are remembered for hurting the economy even though they don't have as much control over it as they thought. Same goes for presidents who reside in times of good economic matters.

I don't disagree. But the fact does remain that.. for better or worse.. presidents

get judged based on the state of the economy during their administration.

Having said,.. the overall state of the economy may not be in a president's control,

but government fiscal responsibility surely is. The president has the power to veto.

The republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but that is clearly no longer the case. Bill Clinton managed to retain and maintain important existing government agencies and was able to create new programs without expanding government, without expanding the size or function too much and while also eliminating a deficit and creating a surplus. For that he deserves credit. And GWB bears responsibility (and deserves criticism) for the expansion of government thats taken place on his watch and for the fiscal irresponsibility that has taken place on his watch. He grew government, squandered the surplus, and has run up an astronomical deficit. And the republican candidates intend to keep doing more of what Bush has done. And you, it seems, support them in that agenda. I don't get it.

He's got a plan for getting everybody in college. He has plans for universal health care. Both, I would argue, hurt the middle class than help it. We'd all end up paying more in taxes anyways because health cares a bitch to pay (even for the government) as well as colleges. If I got a full ride from the government, sure I'd be happy. But if everybody did? How much would that cost the government and where do you think they're gonna get that money from?

College funding and healthcare coverage hurt the middle class, eh? I disagree. Education and healthcare benefit people not harm them. Will kit require us, the American people, to decide what our priorities are? Yes. If we prioritize education and healthcare for all Americans, then we gotta be willing to pony up for it. The wealthiest Americans give up their Bush tax cut, and we all gotta contribute a bit more. By and large, democrats are in line with thinking. Democrats do not consider reasonable taxes (eg, taxes to help all Americans have healthcare and quality education) to be and evil wrought on us by government; we consider it the right thing.. morally and socially responsible thing.. to do. Republicans consider all taxes evil. Period. Republicans want to always get more and they want to give less. Because republicans have no morally or socially conscientious basis upon to oppose reasonable taxes, they resort to accusing dems of being "socialists who expect a gov't solution *cough*socialized medicine*cough* to every problem".

You're right about one thing Hermit, my family is more or less Republican (Not necessarily me but my parents are). However, I didn't learn Republican economic values from my parents. I've never discussed politics with them until maybe last year or so. I've developed my own sense of what I'd like to see in the economy and what I'm for and against in governmental policies. I read a lot Hermit. I read the newspaper, I read biographies, I read news sites. I know what the Democratic party has to offer, I'm simply not for it.

Fair enuf that you don't like what the democrats have to offer, brother. But I'm tellin ya,.. if you vote republican, you're not voting for the interests of middle class America; you're voting for the interests of the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in America. That's a well-known fact. ..which Im sure you're aware from all your reading, right?

Trickle down economics would help Ford and GM and Chrysler so yes I'm for it.

The trickle-down doesn't usually tend to trickle-down any further than into the pockets of the CEOs and stock holders.

Thats assuming nothing's changed. Right now, three car employers are dying and taxes aren't exactly going to keep them afloat, although normally I'd agree with you.

They're dying because they're building expensive, gas-guzzling cars that break down. They're dying because their product isn't competitive with foreign cars which are better designed and better built. They're dying because they're building cars for yesterday rather than cars for tomorrow. They're dying because their cars are no longer "built in America" and as such Americans have no "American pride" incentive to buy them; anymore they're just another foreign-made car,.. and at that they're neither the best nor the most affordable foreign cars available. American car companies are a decade late in starting the transition from gas powered cars to cars for the new millennium... the post-fossil fuel millennium.

If they built better cars.. cars designed to be reliable and are conscientiously designed to be environmentally friendly.. and if they built them in America.. these companies wouldn't be dying; they'd be prospering. All things being equal, given the choice between buying American-made and foreign-made cars, I think most Americans would invest in America by buying cars that have been manufactured here in American. But for the past 15-20 years, all things haven't been equal; Japanese-made cars have been better designed, have gotten better gas mileage, have been better built, and have been more affordable.

Not exactly fair Hermit. You could go to any point in human history where country is doing fine and say that "it'd be different if you were in their shoes." The argument is about how many people are doing bad (and I agree it's rising) but the economy will turn around. It always does.

My point wasn't "you're not in their shoes", per se, my point was that you have someone else providing for you, and therefore you don't really understand what it means to have to support yourself and a family. You have no real sense of what it requires to feed, clothe, house, educate, and pay for healthcare for yourself (let alone for yourself and a family) on a middle class income. You simply don't have the perspective that comes from real-life experience, little bro. Thats not a knock on your intelligence at all, its simply a fact of life given your age and your current circumstances.

You don't think I know that? And how did the government go about trying to fix that? We increased the minimum wage..

All that did was help out high schoolers and part-time college kids. Most of my friends were really happy when that happened because they'd be making more money. Instead, small business were hurt (as if they aren't doing bad enough) because they can't afford to give their employees any more than what it was.

It's not just college kids who make minimum wage, wanna be. You'd be surprised how many people are trying to support a family on a minimum wage income... with little or no healthcare coverage. America can do better for these people. And when I say "America can do better" I mean "WE can do better"; those of us who aren't struggling as much can do more to help our fellow citizens who are struggling more than we are. All we need is a leader who is willing to ask to us to do more.. who is politically brave enough to ask us to do more.

I'm not rich and I'll probably never be rich; but I'm doing ok. I've got a steady job that pays well enough; I've got excellent healthcare coverage; and I don't have children to support. The focus of my political agenda is not "me, me, me" like it seems to be for most republicans; it's "we, we, we". America is among the wealthiest nations on earth (unless you look more closely at the book-keeping and realize we're actually a financial house of cards) and I can see no reason at all why we have as many people who are poor and have no access to good education and healthcare. Its unconscionable. When I look for political leadership I'm not looking for someone who's focus is on developing policies that help the rich get richer while they ignore the millions of disenfranchised Americans; I'm looking for a candidate whose focus is on developing policies that benefit middle class Americans, poor Americans, and disenfranchised Americans. And for that I know which of the two parties I have to look to. It's a clear-cut difference: republicans look to benefit the wealthy; democrats look to benefit the middle class and the disenfranchised. If you arent clear about that, you havent read enough yet.

And btw,.. I don't begrudge wealthy people their wealth one bit. Unless, that is, that wealth is amassed dishonestly or on the backs of.. and at the expense of.. millions of hard working middle class Americans who don't ever get a big enough of piece of the pie for themselves. The pie they helped bake.

Thanks for the discussion, wanna be. I sincerely appreciate

your thoughtfulness even when I disagree with your pov, bud.

[Hermit]

Hermit, CEOs are generally evil people, we all know this to be true. So unless you want to force them to keep making their goods in America, they will not. Simple as that. And since the unions would rather not let their members work peiod, rather than accept the pay cut, companies will continue to move outside the US. I don't think it'll change unless every country in the world decides to change their minimum wage standards to ours, in which case their employees would make what we make. Then it'd be cheaper to make goods here to avoid shipping costs. But like I said, doubtful

We need trade policies that would reduce the disparity between the cost of manufacturing at home or overseas. If we made it illegal to.. [scratch that, start over].. if it was requirement that any goods manufactured overseas had to be made in factories that abide by the same human rights, fair labor, and product safety standards that are required in America, it would no longer benefit companies as much to have their goods manufactured overseas; the cost of manufacturing would have more parity. We also need to close the tax loopholes that multinational corporations are exploiting at the expense of the American economy.

That we turn a blind eye to goods being manufactured overseas by foreign laborers in

sweatshop-like conditions for ridiculously low wages is an absolute shame on America.

We need new trade policies that are more fair to the American economy and

to the America work force and that reflect the value we place on human rights.

Is that asking too much?

"We Americans" do still place a high value on human rights,.. don't we?

Democrats do. What 'bout you and your fellow republicans, wanna be?

This is where I split from the Republicans. I'm all for green. Not entirely for the environment, but because in the long run it benefits everyone financially. But I don't see companies, even green companies, staying in the US if they can make the same goods for 1000% cheaper in Africa

As I said before, we need new trade policies so it'll no longer be

1000% cheaper for companies to manufacture goods overseas.

How on earth [pun intended] can you split from the republicans on an issue as important as the environment and yet still look to put a republican in the WH? Republicans are the big oil/big energy party and have been the "climate crisis is a hoax" and "God created the earth for mankind to exploit" party. You think the repubs are suddenly gonna backs on big oil, big coal, and nuclear power? Aint gonna happen bro.

Having said that,.. Arnold The Governator and John McCain do seem to be two exceptions to the rule. They both have taken.. and have been taking for some time now.. very earth friendly, conscientious positions on climate change and other environmental issues. I give them both due credit for that.

Methinks you give politicians too much credit for honesty. You really think Democrat politicians are that much more noble than Republicans?

I think there is a significant difference between the two parties. Not with so much

regard to "nobility" or "honesty" per se, but with regard to values and priorities.

You'd agree with that, wouldnt you?

Hermit...he lost bud. He could be as truthful as Ron Paul and as charismatic

as Barack, but he's done. Sorry to burst your bubble dude

It aint over til its over bud... and its a ways yet from being over.

We'll know more after Feburay 6th.. tsunami Tuesday.

Don't count John Edwards out just yet. I haven't; my bubble is still intact.

cheers, bud.

oh,. byw..

I'm wondering, wanna be, would you still support John McCain..

..if he was to choose DINO Joe Lieberman as his running mate?

[zepyep]

Hi all,

That we turn a blind eye to goods being manufactured overseas by foreign laborers in

sweatshop-like conditions for ridiculously low wages is an absolute shame on America.

I would ask that since we have members from all over the world on this board,to take a look and any 'things' you have around your house.Where was it made? The whole world is doing it,not just the US.Anyone remember seeing a story a few years ago where Adidas(at the time a German company) was making soccer balls with kids chained to a stake?

How about a company out source it's CSR's to India?

Ho-hum,I could on,it's going to take alot more to change things than who we elect as the next big cheese around here.Myabe we can elect Captian Kirk and all live in a Star Trek type world?Good luck with that.

KB (GDI)

[Idunn]

More pearls of wisdom from Barack Obama:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Sorry, I can't in good conscience vote for someone who is obviously crazy.

[wanna be drummer]

I don't disagree. But the fact does remain that.. for better or worse.. presidents

get judged based on the state of the economy during their administration.

Having said,.. the overall state of the economy may not be in a president's control,

but government fiscal responsibility surely is. The president has the power to veto.

Agreed

The republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but that is clearly no longer the case. Bill Clinton managed to retain and maintain important existing government agencies and was able to create new programs without expanding government, without expanding the size or function too much and while also eliminating a deficit and creating a surplus. For that he deserves credit. And GWB bears responsibility (and deserves criticism) for the expansion of government thats taken place on his watch and for the fiscal irresponsibility that has taken place on his watch. He grew government, squandered the surplus, and has run up an astronomical deficit. And the republican candidates intend to keep doing more of what Bush has done. And you, it seems, support them in that agenda. I don't get it.

I would agree that Clinton did a decent job yes, but he's not running is he? He was more conservative economically (IMO anyways) than the three major Dem. players on the board. Bush ahsn't done a great job, no kidding, but I doubt McCain would continue to do what Bush is doing. He's against a lot of what Bush has done economically (too many tax cuts for the rich, etc.)

College funding and healthcare coverage hurt the middle class, eh? I disagree. Education and healthcare benefit people not harm them. Will kit require us, the American people, to decide what our priorities are? Yes. If we prioritize education and healthcare for all Americans, then we gotta be willing to pony up for it. The wealthiest Americans give up their Bush tax cut, and we all gotta contribute a bit more. By and large, democrats are in line with thinking. Democrats do not consider reasonable taxes (eg, taxes to help all Americans have healthcare and quality education) to be and evil wrought on us by government; we consider it the right thing.. morally and socially responsible thing.. to do. Republicans consider all taxes evil. Period. Republicans want to always get more and they want to give less. Because republicans have no morally or socially conscientious basis upon to oppose reasonable taxes, they resort to accusing dems of being "socialists who expect a gov't solution *cough*socialized medicine*cough* to every problem".

I would not say that a car wash tax (yes that one came up in our legislature) is reasonable. Nor a ski tax..

I'm more of a "Keep the fruits of your labor" kinda guy and yes I know that CEOs and many rich people don't work that hard, but they worked hard to get to that point and their work IS money, so technically they did the smart thing. Americans need to learn how to handle their money rather than rely on the government to pay for everything.

Ever read "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Robert Kiyosaki? He's made a ton of money by just using it the right way. He's against the government taking the money he made the right way and giving it away to other people. So am I (although I am a strong supporter of charities and donations). It should the right of the money-maker to decide what he/she does with that money, not the government.

Fair enuf that you don't like what the democrats have to offer, brother. But I'm tellin ya,.. if you vote republican, you're not voting for the interests of middle class America; you're voting for the interests of the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in America. That's a well-known fact. ..which Im sure you're aware from all your reading, right?

They do indeed like big business but the Democrats don'tlike business period

The trickle-down doesn't usually tend to trickle-down any further than into the pockets of the CEOs and stock holders.

Maybe people should start investing llike me then

They're dying because they're building expensive, gas-guzzling cars that break down. They're dying because their product isn't competitive with foreign cars which are better designed and better built. They're dying because they're building cars for yesterday rather than cars for tomorrow. They're dying because their cars are no longer "built in America" and as such Americans have no "American pride" incentive to buy them; anymore they're just another foreign-made car,.. and at that they're neither the best nor the most affordable foreign cars available. American car companies are a decade late in starting the transition from gas powered cars to cars for the new millennium... the post-fossil fuel millennium.

If they built better cars.. cars designed to be reliable and are conscientiously designed to be environmentally friendly.. and if they built them in America.. these companies wouldn't be dying; they'd be prospering. All things being equal, given the choice between buying American-made and foreign-made cars, I think most Americans would invest in America by buying cars that have been manufactured here in American. But for the past 15-20 years, all things haven't been equal; Japanese-made cars have been better designed, have gotten better gas mileage, have been better built, and have been more affordable.

How would they make more money if they built cars here? The "Made in the US" approach hasn't been working. But you're right, the Big Three aren't designing cars that are built more efficient than foreign cars (cooler looking yes, more efficient no), but right now I care about how their losses are affecting us

My point wasn't "you're not in their shoes", per se, my point was that you have someone else providing for you, and therefore you don't really understand what it means to have to support yourself and a family. You have no real sense of what it requires to feed, clothe, house, educate, and pay for healthcare for yourself (let alone for yourself and a family) on a middle class income. You simply don't have the perspective that comes from real-life experience, little bro. Thats not a knock on your intelligence at all, its simply a fact of life given your age and your current circumstances.

I'm sorry I'm not old OK?! :'(

It's not just college kids who make minimum wage, wanna be. You'd be surprised how many people are trying to support a family on a minimum wage income... with little or no healthcare coverage. America can do better for these people. And when I say "America can do better" I mean "WE can do better"; those of us who aren't struggling as much can do more to help our fellow citizens who are struggling more than we are. All we need is a leader who is willing to ask to us to do more.. who is politically brave enough to ask us to do more.

Than Romneys out of the question because he's lost his political bravery for quite some time no

And Hermit, I still don't think the minimum wage slight increase really did anything of importance. I don't believe it truly helped a whole lot of people.

I'm not rich and I'll probably never be rich; but I'm doing ok. I've got a steady job that pays well enough; I've got excellent healthcare coverage; and I don't have children to support. The focus of my political agenda is not "me, me, me" like it seems to be for most republicans; it's "we, we, we". America is among the wealthiest nations on earth (unless you look more closely at the book-keeping and realize we're actually a financial house of cards) and I can see no reason at all why we have as many people who are poor and have no access to good education and healthcare. Its unconscionable. When I look for political leadership I'm not looking for someone who's focus is on developing policies that help the rich get richer while they ignore the millions of disenfranchised Americans; I'm looking for a candidate whose focus is on developing policies that benefit middle class Americans, poor Americans, and disenfranchised Americans. And for that I know which of the two parties I have to look to. It's a clear-cut difference: republicans look to benefit the wealthy; democrats look to benefit the middle class and the disenfranchised. If you arent clear about that, you havent read enough yet.

Take out the middle class part about Democrats and I agree with you. That's why I will never be a registered Republican nor a registered Democrat. I like neither party.

But yes Hermit, I'd agree that the Democratic cause is a noble one, but I dislike how they want to acheive their goals. I don't think their plans will work.

And btw,.. I don't begrudge wealthy people their wealth one bit. Unless, that is, that wealth is amassed dishonestly or on the backs of.. and at the expense of.. millions of hard working middle class Americans who don't ever get a big enough of piece of the pie for themselves. The pie they helped bake

Thanks for the discussion, wanna be. I sincerely appreciate

your thoughtfulness even when I disagree with your pov, bud.

Amen Brother

And thanks to you as well good sir

In any case, my time is short and I must be going now, I'll respond to your second post whenever I get the oppurtunity again.

Ciao

[MOJO]

The next president of USA:

http://www.homeandbeyond.com/prod-ds-b000ub0004.html

[Del Zeppnile]

More pearls of wisdom from Barack Obama:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Sorry, I can't in good conscience vote for someone who is obviously crazy.

Obama is actually correct. This country is looking for a leader. Not just a President, but a person who will bring leadership and inspiration.

Barrack Obama may not have many of the same political ideas as Ronald Reagan, but what he does share with people like Reagan, JFK and FDR is the ability to communicate optimism... something that we have not seen for a long time.

You can't say that Hillary makes you feel that way.