Presidential Debate

[iacas]

Right, the economy under Clinton was awful.

Gee, what was I thinking when I wished for a higher level debate?

The economy, like many things in life, is cyclical. The economy under Obama is pretty much guaranteed to suck for at least three years because we're in a down cycle. It's not going to miraculously spike upwards. Clinton presided over the dot com boom. Do you think he had much to do with that? What about its subsequent crash that started at the end of his term? Clinton wasn't a bad President, but giving him credit for the economy strikes me as awfully silly unless you're also willing to accept the "blame" somehow for the next three years with Obama in the White House. Me? I prefer not to assign blame to anyone. It's cyclical. And again, there's far, far, FAR too much importance being placed on economics in this election while other issues - issues that may be far more important to a President - are being ignored.

[Grogger31]

And again, there's far, far, FAR too much importance being placed on economics in this election while other issues - issues that may be far more important to a President - are being ignored.

That's twice you've said that without pointing one out. If you'd like to elevate the debate, start by suggesting a subject you'd like to discuss OTHER than the economy. Or would you like us to guess which subjects are important to you?

[immts007]

Erik, your response, while forceful and authoritative (it's just your style I think, and goes with your role here) isn't really any higher level than the rest of the posts here. You make some factual sounding assertions about what works and doesn't with nothing to back it up. You make some black and white statements about the economy, but then say you aren't interested in talking about the economy.

So disregarding your disinterest, let's posit that the general guiding force behind most Democratic administrations is similar of economic view and is a little more focused on trickle up than trickle down. If this doesn't work, why is it that the economic health of the nation has been better on average during democratic administrations over the past 60 years?

The absolute best economic performance was during the JFK/LBJ admins. What to make of that?

[golf_junkie27]

P.S. Buying up mortgages is stupid too. I was responsible and bought a house I could afford. Now I have to pay for other idiots who knowingly got in over their heads?

Preach it. Finally, someone with a working medulla has expressed the truth. While unscrupulous credit managers and mortgage brokers are to blame, the consumer MUST take responsibility for their actions. I'm tired of hearing how people are "losing" their homes when they could not afford them to begin with and then decided to have floating mortgage rates. Aargh.

It's not only those that have to pay for them but what about those that had finished paying off their mortgages and were looking to take out some equity or sell their homes. Those folks now have to wait. As usual, it's the responsible people that get screwed.

[Chilli Dipper]

The economy isn't going to miraculously go up if either candidate wins the election. I'm pretty fiscally indifferent; no one is going to get rid of them, and no one in this country is going to place such a high tax burden on individuals that it directly prevents from attaining a necessary standard of living. I care much more about knowing where my tax money is going. As much as McCain wants to talk about earmarks, if his big project is a mortgage buyout that sells them back to homeowners at a loss, and Obama's big project is a comprehensive mixed-economic reform of health care, the latter is always going to sound like the better investment of taxpayer money to me.

Infrastructure is of huge concern to me. Obama sometimes talks about it; McCain never talks about it. Rebuilding our infrastructure might come with a big price tag, but if it means jobs in the short term and savings on stop-gap repairs and upgrades in the long run, it's worth the expense. It took a New Deal to put that 20th-century infrastructure into place to begin with; it may very well take a Newer Deal to bring it to 21st-century standards. Pave new highways, build new dams and power plants, make water and waste treatment facilities more energy-efficient, and for God's sake, do something with our rail network! We won World War II because we had the best rail system in the world, one that could transport huge quantities of people and materials quickly between both coasts. What we do after the war? Let that system go to rot under the influence of the auto, aviation, and oil lobbies. Rail technology today is much greener and energy-independent than airplanes and cars can ever hope to be, and represent the future of freight and passenger travel. The rest of the developed world has brought its rail systems into the 21st century; ours is still stuck in the 19th!

[Grogger31]

Stop talking about the economy! It is verboten!

[immts007]

He's probably directly opposed to me on gun control.

Erik, fyi and fwiw:

[iacas]

That's twice you've said that without pointing one out.

Did you read what I wrote? I named several other topics, none of which involve Joe the Plumber or some family somewhere or some guy that was a terrorist when someone was 8 or the economy. Off the top of my head: Welfare. Smaller government. Wire tapping. Technology. Gun control. Abortion.

isn't really any higher level than the rest of the posts here.

My post was certainly not some sort of drive-by wise-crack about the Keating Five or some guy's middle name or whatever else. I haven't called some guy not paying his taxes - some guy who simply asked a question and got an answer - "delicious" or whatever.

There's no "higher level" in pointing out that a discussion isn't at a high level. I didn't assign that goal to it - it's just pointing out that I've been disappointed in the conversation held here. I've not partaken to this point and I won't in the future. I hope nobody responds to this post because I'd MUCH rather see you go back to discussing the politics - at any level - than discussing MY post or _me_ in any way. [Removed "Yawn" and a quote - the "Yawn" wasn't to imply any disrespect, just to display my own lack of interest in getting into a discussion on the economy.] To be clear: go back to discussing politics (or the economy, or whatever else you want), making fun of some plumber or someone's middle name, whatever. Discuss it at any level you want, but don't discuss me or my posts on this. I was being selfish and trying to get something out of this discussion; I now realize that's not possible. I'll continue to research the things I want to discuss elsewhere. I will point out that some people might be inclined to side with one side or another more if their behavior was a bit less distasteful. And I'm not pointing fingers here - both sides are guilty of being "distasteful" at times. Again, the middle name wisecracks, the Joe the Plumber wisecracks... it doesn't make your candidate(s) look good to the undecided among us (not that I'm speaking for all undecideds). I'd put this on my ignored threads list but as an admin/mod, I still need to make sure nobody goes off and starts swearing or spewing racist stuff.

[pjsnyc]

...Again, the middle name wisecracks, the Joe the Plumber wisecracks... it doesn't make your candidate(s) look good to the undecided among us (not that I'm speaking for all undecideds)...

To that -

[DDBowdoin]

Gee, what was I thinking when I wished for a higher level debate?

Erik... holding an economics degree it's great to hear someone say that... its something most just people don't want to believe

I'm not a massive fan of W, but I am also wise enough to know and understand that the conditions we are in are not entirely his fault and he essentially has very little power over the market conditions.

[iacas]

Erik... holding an economics degree it's great to hear someone say that... its something most just people don't want to believe

My econ professor in college also told us that "the national debt" is nothing to worry about, either, because (I think I'm remembering this right) "countries don't have life expectancies."

I'm fairly certain that was the basic, one-sentence reason. It involved a bit more than that, but it basically amounted to "the national debt is a great political tool, but really doesn't mean anything economically." You'd probably know more about what I'm saying, and I've forgotten 99% of the point she made, but I remember that it made enough of an impression on me that I no longer care about the national debt - and I was pretty adamant about it before. And please, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, but I will re-iterate that I'm saddened by "drive by" comments by anyone in support of any candidate. For the first time in my life I'm not sure who I'm voting for, and I don't care who you support as I believe you've all come to your conclusions based on your own beliefs, and that's important and to be respected.

[DDBowdoin]

yeah... it def is a political talking point

it would be hard to find the numbers but its well known that a great deal of our national debt is borrowed from developing nations who use those transactions to develop their own infrastructures. A non politically correct way to look at is that the debt we have accrued will likely never be called on because we use political and economic forces such as the world bank and IMF, which are supposed to ease developing nations into the developed world, keep those nations in perpetual poverty. This is essentially means free money for us. It's a terrible reality but its realities like this that have helped the US become such an economic force.

[golf rules]

Oh definitely, whoever is the smoothest talker unfortunately, wins over most of the people because they either don't understand the big words or they like they way they speak. GO JOE THE PLUMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DDBowdoin]

especially since they don't write their own speeches... its sad

[pjsnyc]

Now this is what I would've preferred to see on Weds night at this point in the campaign - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-smith-dinner/

[DDBowdoin]

at the end of the day they are all corrupt

[pjsnyc]

Last night, I caught a panel discussion on PBS. Here's the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ric_10-16.html

I think they make good points about how the Joe the Plumber example has made the tax issue more understandable and concrete to all Americans (because we all 'know a plumber').

[erniebanks]

Everybody, please work hard and long hours. Maybe you should even get a second or third job.
Obama needs the money so he can "spread the wealth around" to people like me who are only going to do as little as possible. So work hard. I don't want to do any more.