Quote:
Originally Posted by Mi Beardo es Loco
We needed a radical change. RP was probably the best candidate to improve on the economy and was the most conservative Republican in the party but the Toby Keith listeners couldn't take him seriously because of his lack of involvment in the church and he was so much of a different Republican than what the midstates has grown to know and love.
And with all this legalizing cannabis talk I'm not sure if this country is turning to a hybrid Libertarian state, maybe Barr was the man that could have made a difference.
Clinton probably would have been more conservative but may have been more proactive than Obama. She would have been the most likely candidate to actually make a change.
Giuliani was also another great leader but was way too cocky for the primary that McCain beat him out.
And to look back in the past, McCain SHOULD have been the Republican nominee in 99. Bush slandered his "friend" and his personal life. It turned to be very typical of the next 8 years. And who here really thinks that McCain would have done the same or worst than Bush? I don't. McCain would have more than likely stayed in Afghanistan until the job was done. IF McCain got the same intel that Bush got then he would have at least had a plan going into Iraq. The guy was a lifelong military man and Bush liked to say he served.
|
idk if Ron Paul really would have been the best for the economy 'today'.
It all depends on your stance in terms of government involvement in today's financial crisis, & how you predict Ron Paul would react.
Ron Paul might very well reject all economic stimulus packages,
given his stance on reduced government involvement in all matters.
The current recession would have most likely been hit a lot harder,
and economic recovery would take longer.
Inflation in the long term probably wouldn't be so much of an issue.
I am in the general opinion that some level of stimulus would have been beneficial, albeit probably not on the magnitude of the amount Obama is spending.
With Obama (other end of the spectrum?),
there is positive results in certain sectors of the economy.
the stock market IS improving.
It will take time for unemployment to make some improvement, but I'm optimistic.
Long term inflation will be serious concern.
Well, it has been since the Bush years, but might significantly worsen with all the spending and widening deficits.
In some respects, Obama is playing the odds very well, if he wants to get re-elected.
Shit-load of stimulus is going to get results faster.
It is entirely possible we might be out of the existing recession within 2 yrs (if not less).
Voters pay attention to the existing state of the economy far more closely than gradual changes in inflation.
A more moderate stimulus strategy might not be fast enough to produce good results in 4 yrs.
What is good for presidential re-election might not always be beneficial to the long-term economy.
Again, this is why imo Clinton would have been the best option
(this is the anti-Obama thread, not the anti-Democrat thread).
Allow equal parts, in moderation, government stimulus & economic cycles to work things out.
Regulate ONLY the factors that most likely contributed to the existing economic crisis.
Do NOT give out home loans to ppl who don't have sufficient credit.
Re-evalutate the 'Community Reinvestment Act' (google this if you don't know about it).
Do NOT allow balloon variable interest rate home loans.
Increase all loan qualifications.
Do NOT regulate shit for the sake of regulation or just to create publicity.
Instead of just blaming the private section, question some of the public policies/organizations.
Fannie & Freddie had it's share of issues imo.
Community Reinvestment Act actively encouraged Sub Prime lending.
About McCain, no doubt he would have been better than Bush.
Not too sure about Gore, but I would have been optimistic about Kerry.
Things could always be worse.
Consider Nancy Pelosi, Willie Brown, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or even someone from Zilvia.net as president.