One of the main issues in this upcoming election in the minds of most voters is the economy. Of the candidates on the table now, who do you think has a better chance of fixing it? Granted, one key condition for the elected President from either party is to reign in the spending, and maintaining fiscal discipline.
I think Clinton or Obama, would probably do a decent job on the economy, McCain, not so much. But of course people would expect me to say this.
Well, which ever one is smart enough to realize that we are already in a recession and to just let the economy fix itself. We are digging a bigger hole by the FED trying to use fiscal policy to fix it. The economy is cyclical like most things and if we just let it fix itself it will be less painful in the long run. Just my two cents. (which is about all i left in my checking account :hihi More to the question, I don't know which one but its pretty much a non-issue for me.
It is hard for me to say as too much focus goes into the president fixing the economy. A lot of pressure is on the house and other economic advisers. As of right now I'd lean towards McCain as I think he could reach to more of those people listed above.
Unfortunately, none of them will do a good job. McCain's chances in this election may very well rest on his VP's economic knowledge & ability.
Very true. I have seen nothing from either party or any of the candidates that show that anyone is interested in a long term solution to economic problems we face.
It doesn't matter what his VP knows about the economy, he won't be the president, and he won't have (and I'm sure McCain won't want him to) the stroke to do anything about it. The Presidency has never been a partnership.
I don't think it will, but keeping Bush's tax cuts, while not cutting spending (and that includes Bush's war) sure won't. I'm afraid electing McCain would be like re-electing Bush again, and that's a shame, because I thought McCain had more promise before he decided to be Bush 3. If the war is so damn important to america's safety and future, then why are the only americans sacrificeing the armed forces and their families? How long would the conservatives support Bush's war if he asked them to help pay for it in the form of increased taxes and gas rationing, ala WW2?
A recession is at least two straight quarters of negative GNP growth. By definition we are not in a recession yet. That is to say that we could not end up in one, but so far the nation has not even had one quarter of negative GNP growth. Of course the second quarter figures are pending.
First, of course we should look to ways to cut spending, but not at the expense of the lives of American soldiers as you suggest. We all make some sort of sacrifice. It may be in the way of taxes or some other means. Everytime an American loses his or her life, we all suffer a lose. We are not having to ration because it is not a total war that calls for a nation's entire resouces being applied to the war effort.
