My subtle jab was that when other people say the same words against bankers (Occupy protesters), they're dismissed as lazy hippies who need to get a job. When people like you say the same words it's translated as "real Americans are being hurt by this awful administration". In the end I could care less who's complaining because there are opportunities out there in good economies and bad.ratherfish wrote:What's your point?
For the most part, yes. Would we have Obamacare? No. I think a stimulus package would have gone through just like it did, but anything else for the most part would get stalled in Congress. The president can do some things, but if there was a magical formula for a president to maintain an always thriving economy, don't you think every president would use that formula? Instead, the market goes in cycles.ratherfish wrote:McCain would have been the same?
Whereas everyone is looking for the government to provide a solution, I think the American people are just going to have to work this one out themselves. The most you can do in government is open up new trade deals, but today the #2 economy (China) isn't buying any of our goods because they're slowing down and the #3 economy (Europe) is one match from burning itself to the ground. So who's left to buy our goods and services to stimulate demand and growth? The federal government and their fake money. Yuck. So if demand and growth require SOMEONE to buy goods and services, but you're cutting your own expenses, I'm cutting my personal and business expenses, every other American is doing the same thing, and no one wants the government to spend anymore money that it already doesn't have, who is going to provide this demand and growth? Especially on a timetable that Americans want (remember that economic recoveries should take no more than 16 months). Things are going to be like this for awhile and I'm not convinced anyone in the Oval Office can do anything about it.
ratherfish wrote:I have personally read several books advocating what you discuss and employ many of the ideas. It's not revelation, and frankly not very relevant since Obama's war on the wage earner not only effects W2 income but every aspect of the cost of living. To merely say it would be the same with McCain and not respond to ascertions to the contrary indicate another motive. Now a secondary tactic of the "occupy movement" change the subject and attack, indicates your actual point may soon surface.
Are you an Obama supporter? Are you intending to vote for him?
You're right that it's not rocket science, but they are firm financial values that just aren't being taught and I think they're more relevant now than ever.
Supporter is a strong word. I would say that I voted against McCain. This cycle I will probably vote against Romney. I line up more with Obama on social issues and I'm not thrilled with Romney's performance as governor (not to say I'm thrilled with Obama's performance as president). It's more like the devil you know than the devil you don't know and I know as long as the Republicans keep the house nothing crazy liberal should be passed anytime soon.
As in do I wear an Obama button on my shirt and post on Facebook about how great his policies are? No.ratherfish wrote:Are you advocating his leadership?
I never disputed the article, but your commentary in the OP gave me the impression that you believe this article wouldn't have existed under a McCain presidency which I disputed.ratherfish wrote:Are you disputing the facts in the original post?
Hope this clears up my position.
Thank you.ratherfish wrote:As a relevant side issue, I have three children older than you and have endevored to teach them to come to the point. I do however salute your ambition, drive and industry.
I'm not sure if people on this forum don't like me because I'm not Republican enough (I tend to vote Republican for governors and members of Congress) which is a common problem in the Republican party or because I feel that neither party really has our best interests in mind which make my comments appear as blasé.
