Utopia Talk / Politics / The Economist endorses Obama

Hellfire Member	Thu Oct 30 15:30:55 http://www...=12516666&source=features_box1 It's time Oct 30th 2008 From The Economist print edition America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government?s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack. For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America?s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama?s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead. Thinking about 2009 and 2017 The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America?s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was. Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America?s huge entitlement programmes?Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy. At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan?s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism. The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans? candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions?for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America?s allies. If only the real John McCain had been running That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as ?agents of intolerance? now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right. Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia?to warn Russia off immediately?was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception). The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice. Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them. Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America?s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America?s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism. So Mr Obama?s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left. There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama?s résumé is thin for the world?s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics?the Clintons and the conservative right. Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain?s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well. It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America?s enemies. Part of Mr Obama?s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is? but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met. Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party?s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole. He has earned it So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 30 15:32:00 I am going to have to learn how to recover stuff. Thanks murder.
Hellfire Member	Thu Oct 30 15:57:25 ttt
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:02:34 It's a shame really, The economist used to be grat, and still has alot of great articles. However more often lately they have been becoming more and more that of which they used to oppose, dubbing them the nickname in in Europe the "Ecommunist".
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:24:30 Really? I havne't heard that in Europe. Are you sure it wasn't some far right idiot that told you a lie?
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:26:21 Let me look it up, I beleive the quote was from an Italian.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:27:36 Berlusconi was his name.
redblooded Member	Thu Oct 30 16:28:10 Well, mb isn't that far off then...
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:30:06 Ah, Berlusconi, in reply to when the economist accused him of corruption. lol
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:31:54 The Economist frequently accuses figures and countries of corruption or dishonesty. In recent years, for example, it criticised World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's Prime Minister (who dubbed it The Ecommunist[19]); Laurent Kabila, the late president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Robert Mugabe, the head of government in Zimbabwe and, recently, Cristina Kirchner, the president of Argentina.[20] The Economist also called for Bill Clinton's impeachment and later for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation after the emergence of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:39:58 They claimed "conflict of interests" if I remember the story right (he has direct/indirect control on the majority of new media in Italy) You gottta love a guy caught flack for saying "Communists ate their kids", although it in a round about way true, MAO boiled children and used them as fertiliser.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:42:48 ""But read The Black Book of Communism and you will discover that in the China of Mao, they did not eat children, but had them boiled to fertilise the fields." He tried to calm the furore on Wednesday, telling Italian TV: "It was questionable irony, I admit it, because this joke is questionable. But I did not know how to restrain myself."
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:46:25 He then passed out 1k copies of "the black book of Communism" for free. You have to admit, that is some funny shit
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:47:38 It disturbs me that people actually walk around believing utter nonsense.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:51:29 Are you saying that that is a false statement?
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:52:58 I just posted where Berlusconi said it was a questionable joke.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 16:54:33 I've also googled and found nothing.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:56:39 That they ate their kids. It is true that used dead kids for fertilizer under Mao.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 16:59:08 In March 2006, Berlusconi defended accusations he made that the "Communists used to eat children", by responding with claims that "... read the Black Book of Communism and you will discover that in the communist China of Mao, they did not eat children, but had them boiled to fertilise the fields". He later admitted, "It was questionable irony ... because this joke is questionable. But I did not know how to restrain myself."
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:03:57 Even if that wasn't true, Mao has probably the worst human rights record in all of history, him or Stalin.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:06:20 I just dont understand that mentality at all. Mao was a whore, a bastard. If I'd been offered to execute him, perhaps I would have. But how in gods name can one allow oneself to walk around believing in nonsense that never existed? I dont understand that at all.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:09:16 Well, as you admit, he was bastard, it wasn't above him.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:09:52 Its the same thing with saddam. He was another son of a whore. But I'd just be insulting my own intelligence to walk around thinking that his WMD, his dead babies in freezers, his remote drones, his 45 minute missiles to the US, his Nigerian yellowcake etc etc etc is what makes me think he's a disgusting bastard. But with the way Reps are today, if I refuse to believe in lies that never happened, I'm a Saddam lover.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:11:24 I don't care whether someones a bastard or a hero when it comes to learning history. Jjust because someones a bastard doesnt mean Im going to allow myself less integrity, "who cares about the truth", and allow myself to be fooled by nonsense.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:15:14 It was a joke, and pretty funny at that. He didn't put it in textbooks.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:24:42 Im talking about you walking around believing stuff like that...Also, in case you don't know, Berlusconi is known throughout Europe as the most corrupt leader in Europe and the closest thing we embarrassingly enough have to Bush.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:26:00 Why would that be funny pissing China off? Why is provoking dangerous nations funny? Its not funny if Merkel says americans burn babies in Iraq either. Its dangerous and stupid.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:29:18 "Peasants lacked the strength to work, and some collapsed in the fields and died. City government organisations and schools sent people to the villages by night to buy food, bartering clothes and furniture for it. In Shenyang the newspaper reported cannibalism. Desperate mothers strangled children who cried for food. Many reported that villagers were flocking into the cities in search of food; many villages were left empty, only the old people who were not strong enough to go into the cities being left behind. It was also said that peasants were digging underground pits to hide their food. (Laszlo Ladany, The Communist Party of China and Marxism: 1921-1985)" The difference is, this is not far from the truth. http://www...caplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part7 "In Shenyang the newspaper reported cannibalism. Desperate mothers strangled children who cried for food."
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:32:53 Its very different. One thing is reality and one thing is fiction. Im not interested in having my world view formed or including fiction. Its the same with Bush, who I detest. If I met someone at a pub and we were discussing Bush and realized that we had the same near-hatred of the selfish, stupid bastard, if the guy suddenly said something like: "Did you know bush boiled babies?", I'd think, whoops, this is an idiot, and I'd tell hom to stop being retarded.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:37:29 Mao directly caused a famine that led to people strangling babies, and canibalism. It's right there cited. It's not a stretch to think that they probably ate the babies (some, not all) So I don't see the fiction really, admittedly he said it in such a way as to cause contreversy, but if they were eating humans and strangling babies, is it really a lie to say they ate babies? why would they just eat older people?
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:38:22 As for the fertiliser bit. He then passed out the very book for free (1k) that he misrepresented.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:41:39 That led to people allegedley strangling babies. I bet you there are stories of parents killing their babies in Iraq too when it was so bad they had no hope. Hell, it even happens in your country, sometimes losing a job is enough to turn someone over the edge, kill their family and then suicide. He still did not boil babies. I blame Bush for the death of babies in Iraq, but Im not going to say he personally killed them, or think its ok if we throw in a few exaggerations, like bush boils babies.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:43:57 "So I don't see the fiction really" I cant sympathize with people who think like that. It is fiction, or show me a source. I cant reconcile myself to that kind of thinking.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 30 17:45:21 Its the same thinking that allows people to believe Obama is an Arab terrorist. It pisses me off. Also, my stomach is hurting like a bitch, so Im gonna have a liedown.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 30 17:50:36 "That led to people allegedley strangling babies. I bet you there are stories of parents killing their babies in Iraq too when it was so bad they had no hope. Hell, it even happens in your country, sometimes losing a job is enough to turn someone over the edge, kill their family and then suicide. He still did not boil babies. I blame Bush for the death of babies in Iraq, but Im not going to say he personally killed them, or think its ok if we throw in a few exaggerations, like bush boils babies. " The difference was that this was a forced famine directly upon Mao's orders. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that. CHINESE media was the one claiming the murder of babies (to put them out of their misery) You talk about Bush "murdering babies", the difference is that that was a war. Name one modern war that didn't result in civilian casualities? Really if you compare most other wars to Bush's war, the casualty numbers are much lower in Bush's favor.
MurdeR Moderator	Thu Oct 30 18:31:00 "I am going to have to learn how to recover stuff. Thanks murder." The only way to do it is through your browser history. Finding the right thread, copying it and re-posting it yourself. There is no undelete function available to us. And yeah, we've all whacked threads by mistake.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 30 18:31:57 lol. Ecommunist. That was Burlusconi after the Economist pointed out he was corrupt. And boy is he.
Dukhat Member	Thu Oct 30 18:34:55 I don't care what the economist thinks anymore. I use to respect what they think but they were always short on presenting real facts to support their arguments. They like Obama because they have bought his narrative of, "look how smart I am!" above real doubts over his past and his associations. Typical intellectuals living in a bubble.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 30 18:41:51 *rolls eyes* Yeah, obama palls around with terrorists. First day, he's going to press the button and nuke jesus-land.
Daemon Member	Thu Oct 30 18:43:09 habebe, Berlusconi loves to call his enemies communists. It's an old trick of the stupid right. In the same way how stupid leftists call everyone who disagrees with them fascists.
roland Member	Thu Oct 30 19:00:20 "The difference was that this was a forced famine directly upon Mao's orders." No, it is not. His failed policy did cause the famine, but it is not a forced famine, it is a indirect impact of his failed policy. The difference is intent. "It doesn't get much more clear cut than that. CHINESE media was the one claiming the murder of babies (to put them out of their misery) " But it was done by the people themselves out of desperation. They were not orders by the state. As MB said, it could be correct to say his policy was disastrous and caused the famine, but it is fiction to say he "forced" the famine, that's fiction.
Hellfire Member	Fri Oct 31 01:09:21 ttt
habebe Member	Fri Oct 31 01:19:19 Roland, I never said he INTENDED to starve them, but is was a forced famine, he pretty much had sole control. This was something that was thus forced upon them. Yes these were actions by the peasants in an extremley desperate situation.If an animal has it's leg caught in a trap, it will often chew it's own foot off. This particular desperate situation was ordered (with good intentions) by Mao. Daemon, I'm not sure if you are a regular reader of the Economist (I somewhat am) and for a paper that praises free trade and denounces protectionism to support a candidate of opposite veiws is a hard turn to the left.
habebe Member	Fri Oct 31 01:21:17 regardless of how this Italian PM normally attacks his opponents (admittedly I don't know alot about him) he is somewhat correct that the economist latley has been taking a sharp left turn in it's ideaology, although obviously he is exaggerating.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 31 05:11:15 Tbe Economist comes from a more British perspective of liberal pragmatism. It's always been a bit distrustful of following ideology over the edge. Perhaps your characterisation of Obamma as being so sharply left wing as opposed to, oh, New Labour in the UK, is indicative of just how far your guys have gone. The Economist is always going to support a candidate that is best over all. Doesn't matter if they disagree with him on some things. They certainly disagree with a lot of stuff McCain-Palin says too. It would be a massive swing for the Economist to back a ticket, one half of which rejects some of the fundamental enlightenment tenets to which they subscribe.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 31 10:41:15 Economist has endorsed the challenger over the incumbent in every election sicce, I believe GWB Sr's loss to Clinton. They went for Clinton, Dole, Bush, Kerry and now for Obama. So, this is hardly surprising.
KreeL Member	Fri Oct 31 16:30:31 Well, it IS a bit surprising. However, as anyone would say, Obama will take it.
Master Bates Member	Fri Oct 31 18:24:38 As colin powell said, the Reps in the US have gone too far right. They're considered almost fascists by the rest of humanity. Judging Obama from that perspective, as a marxist, just makes the rest of the world shake its head.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 31 19:49:30 MB: Fascists? No. They have the emo-esque atttidues of the fascists, "poor me" victimhood, the over-compensation maschismo, the retreat-from-enlightenment-as-unmanly stuff. And the whole "follow the leader" schtick. But they are totally, massively, incompetent. Fascism is what their subconcious minds have wet dreams about.
Master Bates Member	Fri Oct 31 19:50:59 I never said they were any good at it.
habebe Member	Fri Oct 31 23:56:55 "As colin powell said, the Reps in the US have gone too far right. They're considered almost fascists by the rest of humanity. Judging Obama from that perspective, as a marxist, just makes the rest of the world shake its head." What?! to the Right? the Reps have gone way far to the left if anything, slightly more totalitarian (which you could argue either left or right) They supported the bailout (left), they've introduced the Patriot act (european style big brother) they've increased spending through the roof.The only right-wing things they've supported in recent memory were the partial privatization of SS, anti-abortion (although they've done nothing about it) and support for miliatry. I'm Economically very conservative and socially classical liberal (Libertarian). Seb, A few things? Obama has economically a polar opposite of what the economist generally is. He wants to raise the min. wage to 9.50/hr. A common claim from Republicans is that this will cause inflation, they are either lying or ignorant, it will not, it may slightly raise the price of a few US goods, but mostly this just lowers the employment rate, it can not cause inflation, but still is not a great economic idea because of the loss of jobs. He wants to instate protectionism and back out on free trade deals. He wants to to put 40% of the US on welfare (that he calls a tax cut only because he himself redifined the term of a tax cut) He wants to remove the secret ballot when people vote for unionization, I don't even know that many liberals who like this. He wants to regulate bussiness even more so, raise corperate taxes (we already have the 2nd highest CT rate in the world!) He wants to start FDR style government employment (paying people for things we do not need) And as for spending he wants to add so mewhere in the range of 12 trillion (which lets face it will go much higher) He claims he will save money by ending war in Iraq, although if he wants to shift those troops to Afghanistan I don't see how that would be any cheaper.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 01 08:33:07 habebe: I find it absolutely hilarious how the Right defines left wing. How is a big brother state (and Patriot act, by the way, is far in advance of what any European state has) a left wing ideal? It's just as much a right wing ideal. "Obama has economically a polar opposite of what the economist generally is." You exagerate. The Economist is not so didactic on economics as you are. Sure, they don't like the protectionist overtones, but at the same time they do essentially believe in some basic ideas that the US generally does not, such as a social safety net and social medical care. Their beef is how that should be provided (NHS model, or some form of insurance model). Equally, they are for things like gay Marriage etc. The Republican social agenda is for-square against a lot of the Economists personal liberty agenda. When you tot up, you have a McCain-Palin campaign that looks dangerously erratic, and while McCains record is much more in keeping with the Economist, his campaign goes far more against the Economist's principles and raises the threat that whatever McCains personal views, he will govern as the rump end of the Karl Rove Conservative movement: Anti-intelectuals, anti-rationalists, overly populist, and with a constrictive social agenda in tow. Also, they do not rate McCain's economic credentials. I am unsurprised they are backing Obamma, McCain's campaign and party have not campaigned on a platform that the Economist can support, they would have to endorse him despite his campaign, and they are far too dispassionate and evidence orientated to do that. They take McCain-Palin at it's word. "but mostly this just lowers the employment rate" It didn't in the UK. The economist spent a long time covering this in the UK, and while opposing it recanted. It is perhaps unsurprising they are not as concerned about a minimum wage in the US. "He wants to instate protectionism and back out on free trade deals." There has been doubts raised about whether this is all "aspirations" on the campaign trail that go nowhere in government. This is their cheif worry about Obama, it is true. "we already have the 2nd highest CT rate in the world!" Only the headline. You also have one of the lowest CT takes thanks to hideous complexity and numerous rebates and allowances. Economist thinks his proposals amount to tax-simplification rather than a raise. "He wants to start FDR style government employment" Arguably sensible in a recession. "although if he wants to shift those troops to Afghanistan I don't see how that would be any cheaper." Lower overheads. You are in Afghanistan already. "He wants to remove the secret ballot when people vote for unionization, I don't even know that many liberals who like this." Sounds like a right wing move to me! Are you sure this is entirely accurate?
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 17:13:15 "How is a big brother state (and Patriot act, by the way, is far in advance of what any European state has) a left wing ideal? It's just as much a right wing ideal." Well, there are different types of "conservative/right". Remember that in the US the furthest (semi-big) party to the right is the Libertarian party who advocates more than anything against big government. While the patriot act is BS, we don't have near the camera surveilance that the UK has, so both systems encroach on freedom. "Equally, they are for things like gay Marriage etc. The Republican social agenda is for-square against a lot of the Economists personal liberty agenda." Ah but "republican" is not synonomous with "right", like I said. ""but mostly this just lowers the employment rate" It didn't in the UK. The economist spent a long time covering this in the UK, and while opposing it recanted. It is perhaps unsurprising they are not as concerned about a minimum wage in the US. " Not that I don't beleive you, but I am very curious, do happen to have a cite? ""He wants to instate protectionism and back out on free trade deals." There has been doubts raised about whether this is all "aspirations" on the campaign trail that go nowhere in government. This is their cheif worry about Obama, it is true. " The same could be said for McCains campaign. ""He wants to start FDR style government employment" Arguably sensible in a recession. " No, absolutley not. FDR's policies were proven to have made things far worse. Have you ever read "the monetary history of the united states"? ""although if he wants to shift those troops to Afghanistan I don't see how that would be any cheaper." Lower overheads. You are in Afghanistan already. " Still the cost to maintain such forces wouldn't be any less, one could argue a force that is less spread out is going to be more effective, although I worry about a power vacuum in Iraq. " "He wants to remove the secret ballot when people vote for unionization, I don't even know that many liberals who like this." Sounds like a right wing move to me! Are you sure this is entirely accurate? " Really? giving more power to Labor unions sounds right-wing to you? Any way it's called the "Employee free choice act", and he definitley is favor of it.(JM opposes it) http://www...ama-supports-union-organizing/ http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-phonebank13-2008oct13,0,901524.story The WSJ also had an article with it.
Garyd Member	Sat Nov 01 17:18:13 And the Patriot act is worse than having cameras on every street corner exactly how???
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: