Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which of our Primary candidates will be best for the US economy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:59 AM
Original message
Poll question: Which of our Primary candidates will be best for the US economy.
Feel free to qualify your vote. This is, IMO, the key American issue BTW.
I'm voting for Hillary obviously. I'll qualify that by saying that I think her overall plan for America will result in a "healthcare bubble" by taking tax dollars that would otherwise be squandered on Iraq and pumping them into the healthcare industry by providing universal coverage to the poor and, plus, by forcing the uninsured by choice to choose otherwise. This can only lead to increased profits to hospitals who have shown little to no growth for years due to the fact that they have been forced to absorb the costs of treating uninsured persons. It also means companies who support hospitals will show dramatic growth as hospitals respond to theinflux of capital. Say what you will about "the establishment candidate" but I see nothing but good things for everybody here. Furthermore, obama, being the unknown candidate that he is, will result in prolonged market uncertainties which will translate into continued market losses as investors wait along the sidelines to see which way the wind is going to blow.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Looks to me like Obama's people have more votes than solutions.
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 08:23 AM by aquarius dawning
Which has kind of been the argument all along. If you can't qualify your votes on this issue with at least a little evidence or opinion, what other conclusion can we draw?
typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I don't see any "solutions" from HRC supporters either.
Obama's and Clinton's plans are similar enough that they will probably have similar effects on the economy. Where Obama wins out is in his broad appeal to Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans. The state of the economy is all about confidence. When people have more confidence in their leader, they will have more confidence in the future of their country and in the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:32 AM
Original message
The state of the market is all about certainty. Obama is a great big ? to investors.
Hillary is a known quantity and the economy likes that better than warm tingly feelings in their legs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. The one not having to subsidise his own campaign. Barack clearly good forsuisness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yeah, I don't think wall street will buy that. I think Obamanomics will look alot like Carternomics
and he'll serve one term for it just like Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. A healthy economy starts with enthusiasm ask any good salesman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. The same thing can be said about a lie or a con. ask any used car salesman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent-Voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. The president has far less effect than we give them credit for, but they can set the tone
for things. Voters are in a foul mood right now for good reason. Nominating (cause there is no way in hell she'll get elected in the GE) Hillary is just too cynical for many folks. Opportunities are available to everyone, every day, but I truly believe that people are less likely to take a chance to jump on things if the nation as a whole is in a funk and polarized.

Obama, if nothing else, seems like he to instill optimism in people. It'd be foolish to discount that in the grand scheme of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well, you'll notice that Hillary and Obama are not the only choices..
for voters. And I completely disagree about your fiirst premise. The president will have a massive impact on the state of our economy in and after 2008d due to the radical shift in ideology and policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. Obama
For one, I have serious doubts that Clinton can win the general election to begin with. All these great policies do not mean anything if you do not win. Expanding on that same idea, I believe Obama will be much more effective in getting legislation passed, and his being on the top of the ticket will probably lead to bigger gains in the House and Senate. Of course those arguments are purely strategic, and I am sure what you really meant to ask was whose policies in and of themselves are better. Their economic plans are quite similar, but I would say that trade policies would in the end give him a negligible advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. What trade policies are you referring to specifically?
"I would say that trade policies would in the end give him a negligible advantage"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Their trade policies are fairly similar
Both support strengthening TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) and eliminating tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. They also both put a focus on enforcement, with Clinton specifically stating she would create a new trade enforcement officer position within the office of the USTR, Obama's focus seems to be on getting the WTO to be more active. The difference comes with the attitudes towards NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Obama is pushing for amending NAFTA, while Clinton wants no new NAFTA like agreements (the media has been referring to this as a "timeout on trade"). The difference here is simply a commitment to changes in trade policies that really started to take shape in the 90s. Clinton wants to review the impact, hold off on new agreements, and then make a later determination. Obama wants to beging changing those trade policies right away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I think the free trade crowd will fight Obama tooth and nail on any immediate and radical changes
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 10:34 AM by aquarius dawning
to the free trade agreements. Low wage manufacturing jobs are not coming back regardless. China is the new manufacturing king of the world. Trying to fight that by punishing U.S. companies that have accepted it and adapted to it is about as productive as... :banghead:

Americans need to look to new watering holes not affected by overseas emerging markets for job growth, not the old holes that have already dried up. The better leader will lead his flock to the new watering holes, not back to the old ones that aren't there anymore. I think that's Hillary, not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
13. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
15. the one taking less Corporate money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Mike Gravel?
seriously, they have both taken corporate money and lots of it. That's OK. Corporations like to make money. When they make money, we make money. When they lose money, we lose money. Punishing corporations is equivalent to punishing Americans. Welcome to investor class economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. you should read some Thom Hartmann
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 01:53 PM by LSK
And try TO unbrainwash yourself.

They have been making lots of money in the past few years. We have been making less. Nobody will dispute this fact. Have you read a newspaper in the past 5 years or so?????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. That is George Bush's economic insanity at work pure and simple
I wouldn't argue with anybody that his economic "plan" has been anything but a disaster for everyone except the already very wealthy and I'm sure I hate him as much as you do for it. I'm not brainwashed but I do believe that punishing corporations for George Bush's insanity will not help anyone at this point. Job training in non-manufacturing sector areas is part of the solution and I certainly have no problem with repealing those ludicrous tax cuts and using the money to provide that training to the displaced workers affected by the free trade agreements. Pulling out of Iraq will free up billions/trillions of tax dollars for economic revitalization plans as well. I think both candidates are thinking similarly along these lines actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. what about tearing down NAFTA and going back to tarriffs?
The US is still a huge market and foreign companies would have to open factories here while forcing our corporations to move jobs back here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Probably NO on NAFTA but possibly yes on Tarriffs so long as the revenue is used
to prepare America and Americans for the challenges we face in the 21st century. And while we're beating up on NAFTA, let's remember that outsourcing manufacturing jobs is only 1/2 of the current labor market equation. We don't want to talk about the other half of the equation though but let's face it, people are bought and sold in Washington D.C. like cattle. That's the plantation economy that Hillary mentioned a while back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC