If the election was held today

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

I never said that any of them was a yes or no talking point. I fully agree that you have to delve deeper into each candidates theories to truly understand what his stance is on each issue. My posting of that nonsense was a blunder that I had already appologized for. No need to revisit that.

Personally I believe that we as a nation should tap into every fuel resource possible so that we are not overly dependant on a single one. In other words I do not mind if we drill for more oil, but we had better be also Building Nuclear power plants, setting up windmills, mining for coal, expanding usage of natural gas etc.etc.etc.

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.
The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.

The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.

I would argue that it may not have a large impact, but it certainly does not help. Remember that every little bit counts.

If you go to the store 10 times and throw down just $100 to get some necessities you just went through a grand. It may not impact your financial spending at the time, but long term it gets expensive.

Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.

:doh:
How many times do people have to correct this before people listen? This is why there is political propaganda because people like NMredskin don't listen when the truth comes out, and they will believe any crap they see.

Since you've either clearly missed, or ignored it NMredskin, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time only 1 year out of the 8 Bush has been office. Wasn't even close in the other years. We won't even get into the massive percentage Obama has voted with his party lines. The left threw up some junk, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

mccain voted with his party about 85% of the time, obama voted with his 97%.

so yeah, in relative terms mccain is a maverick and obama is someone who hasn't really reached across party lines. that doesn't guarantee future voting patterns, but it is an indication.

Maybe if Republicans had any sort of issues worth voting for he would have voted more (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490) with Republicans?

8TLD3Z6sJWA

:doh:
How many times do people have to correct this before people listen? This is why there is political propaganda because people like NMredskin don't listen when the truth comes out, and they will believe any crap they see.

Since you've either clearly missed, or ignored it NMredskin, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time only 1 year out of the 8 Bush has been office. Wasn't even close in the other years. We won't even get into the massive percentage Obama has voted with his party lines. The left threw up some junk, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

Get your facts straight, it was 95% of the time in 2007 and voted with his party 90 % of time. FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html) ITs so funny how the evil "left" is always trying to get the poor "right". Its not fair, the mean media.

Get your facts straight, it was 95% of the time in 2007 and voted with his party 90 % of time. FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html) ITs so funny how the evil "left" is always trying to get the poor "right". Its not fair, the mean media.
So your saying that McCain voted 90% over the Bush term?