Massive bailouts, foreclosed homes, jaw-dropping gas prices, chaos on Wall Street. These are just a few signs of the U.S.'s struggling economy. As America enters the next chapter of its history, what impact will an Obama administration have on our economic future?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Who Has the Right Plan for America's Economy?
Republicans had 8 years to do something
The Republicans had a good deal of time to try to do something positive for the country, even after dealing with the Trade Center attacks. But what we got was a needless war unrelated to 9/11, enormous debt and an economy that is terrible for the average person. What would be my motivation for rewarding the Republican party for that? Especially when it's looking like McCain is running as George Bush's third term?
- Kelly
July 23, 2008 11:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama is clearly "The Good Old Boy"
John McCain, clearly, has shown us that he has stood up to Bush repeatedly for a better America and to the Republican party for his entire career. Obama is clearly "The Good Old Boy" in this campaign. It is becoming apparent to democrats all over the nation, unfortunately, that Obama is too egotistical to do effective work in the best interest of this country.
- indieplanet
September 28, 2008 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McCain is no maverick
That's amusing. Obama a "good old boy?" It hasn't been that long ago that real "good old boys" were lynching people that had the same skin color as Obama, just because they had that skin color. Either you're engaging in a very sick joke or you have no clue as to what "good old boy" really means in the history of the US.
It would also be nice if you could cite some examples that show how Obama is too egotistical to do effective work. Are these the best Republican talking points these days?
- Kelly
September 28, 2008 9:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Both
They're both "good old boys" in my eyes.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Statement
Good statement. I do not believe either of them is truly qualified to run this country.
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Convention
Watch the Convention, that was proof enough for me to see that Obama is egotistical. Then listen to every thing he has said this whole year. However, I am not for McCain either. I think that they both are show boating. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a clean campaign without all the bashing that just is cut and dry as to what the candidates would try to do when they get in the White House?
- UltraConservative October 1, 2008 3:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McCan is not whom he tries to portray himself to be!!!!!!!!!!!
Being from Arizona you have been conned by the maverick John McCain. Neither canidate is perfect but make sure you do your research before falling for the maverick!!
- chaseruns26
October 1, 2008 12:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are wrong
View this with an open mind if you can. Vote your conscience but at least be an informed voter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Thiis not spin or right-wing rhetoric, it is footage from CSPAN where Democrats are saying there is no housing crisis coming and Fanny and Freddy are fine and Republicans calling for regulation. You are being lied to.
And here is a NY Times article from 1999 predicting the failure and subsequent bailout of Fanny and Freddy due to changes during the Clinton administration.
--SNIP--
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
--SNIP--
- Pliskin
October 1, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
forclosure phil
I agree one ought to be an informed voter. It has become common knowledge that Phil Graham is at the top of the responsibility list when it comes to our current crisis. He was major deregulator of the 90's and did ir purposly to line the pockets of the ultra rich whats more it worked!
- wanderer
February 28, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whats wrong with America
Sorry to use you as an example, Phil, but to me, you represent what is truly wrong with Americans and politics. You take the easy way out, to repeat the garbage without doing a little of your own research or coming up with your own view point. It is so easy to blame a single person rather than step back and look at the system as a whole. So saying Phil Graham is at the top overlooks the problem and ergo, one cannot have solve a problem without understanding the problem.
The key to the financial issue is complex, no doubt, but one can easily point out the biggest contributor to the problem and the issue that started the downfall: the housing market collapse. Within that are a number of factors starting with Fannie and Freddie. They are hybrid organizations. They are neither private company nor are they a government agency. There are something in between and that is a big part of this problem. Had they been a company, they would have had to behave in a more responsible fashion. Had they been a government agency, they would have been subjected to more oversight. Add to that, the goal of the Clinton administration to put more lower income people into home ownership (under a Republican congress so blame is equal). Now you have a recipe for disaster. Mortgage companies sell mortgages to home buyers then in turn sell those mortgages to Fanny and Freddy. Fanny and Freddy has restrictions on which mortgages they would buy so mortgage companies sold the ones they knew they could resell. Prior to Bill's home ownership initiative, Fanny and Freddy would not buy risky mortgages like Interest only, etc. but after Bill's initiative, they started buying up risky loans which in turn had mortgage companies drooling because now they had a whole new HUGE market to sell to that was not available to them before. For interest only or adjustable ARMS, everything was peachy for awhile until the adjustment period when lower income, credit risky folks found themselves unable to afford the adjusted payments. Needless to say, 1) this crisis has been brewing for a long time and 2) as homes foreclosures started to increase nothing was done and 3) as homes foreclosed, people spent less thus slowly putting an undertow on our whole economy.
The point is, blaming Phil Graham or any single individual in this mess is dangerous as it does not address or even reveal the full scope of the problem. So when you point to deregulation, yet in the video clip I linked to above which I don;t think you watched, you have lawmakers literally saying that there is no problem and that a government appointed auditor is wrong. How do you watch that and think the government should have been more involved when it clearly shows that our government is incapable?
- Pliskin
February 28, 2009 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part II
In cases of regulation or government bailouts, here is what happens: businesses do not need to be financially sound. This is very much like the kid you knew in school was was small but friends with the bully. That guy would flap his lip endlessly because he knew the bully had his back. Take the bully away, and this guy thinks a little more before he speaks. If a business like a bank knows the government will be there to save them, they can take greater risks and this is exactly what happened with Fanny and Freddy.
But the biggest issue to me is I feel, long ago, we lost our concept of government. It is no longer by the people, for the people as every decision made has underlying motives. Things like campaign contributions, PAC money, lobbyists...not to mention political spin because Lord knows, no one want to be holding the bag. In the video clip above, you can see Democrats arguing with the auditor, saying Fanny and Freddy were financially sound yet listen to them this past fall and they sing a different tune. It wasn't their fault, it was the republicans and deregulation. Find someone else to blame so people won't think it was you and never mind that those senators in the video all got money from Fanny and Freddy.
Everyone is to blame and everyone had their hands in the cookie jar and I have gotten to a point where I don't believe a one of them, republicans or democrats.
So please take a step back and really look at this. It is so easy to blame Bush for the war, for example, when Al Gore virtually guaranteed in 2000 that he would invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam if elected. If Gore had won, we'd be in the exact same place we are now. It doesn't matter who is in office, or what little letter is shown after their names (R or D), its our whole government. I voted for Obama only because I hope and pray he really is someone different. Only time will tell...
GORE'S CAMPAIGN SPEECH TO AIPAC, May, 2000: His own words...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Gore.html
"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone."
"We have used force when necessary, and that has been frequently. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a senator, I voted for the use of force, as vice president I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waiver. Never waiver."
A politician is a politician. Don't blame them as individuals, blame the collective mess that our government has become.
- Pliskin
February 28, 2009 2:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
phil
I do agree that many are to blame. However, it would appear you take the "its the system" approach; which is to say no one is to blame. Therefore, there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Moreover, to point to Al Gore and claim he "would have" done the same thing as Bush in Iraq seems to me a bit of a logical leap. The problems we face is not "the system". The problem is a philosophy that rewards greed and embraces the maintenance of inequality of opportunity.
And lets be honest here. Bush's war had nothing to do with ridding the world of a vicious tyrant, nor did it have anything to do with the now infamous weapons of mass destruction. It had everything to do with no bid contracts, using 9/11 an excuse to invade Iraq and gain control of its oil.
Of course, there is no one to blame because it the "system". Tens of thousands of people have died and no one is to take responsibility. We can only blame the "collective mess" then?
- wanderer
March 1, 2009 6:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fact vs party line
When will Democrats stop listening to the ever changing party line. I remember watching the debate on the House and Senate floor about the start of the war in Iraq. The majority of Democrats were right there with the Republicans voting,knowing it meant invading Iraq, approval to use force against Iraq. Back then everyone believed the intelligence, the Russians, Germans, French, British, and others as well. Later a bi-partisan committee was set up to look at the intelligence and found it flawed but cleared the Bush Administration of knowingly lying. Most, but not all, Democrats seem to forget about all this. Lets remember, Democrats controlled Congress most of the past 50 years and in contol again the past two years. The economy has faltered with Democrats in control of the purse strings...Why should we reward them? People who think McCain is Bush is just drinking the kool-aid.
- aferla
October 16, 2008 2:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mccain? Bush?
So we are to put a Democrat into the white house whose desire is to institute more social programs and more government control on things? You look at what he is planning to do. How many billions or trillions of dollars do you think it will take to accomplish that? Allot more than the current -$$$$$ that America has. You cannot institute programs that give the government control of things that people should control without 1) taking away freedoms 2) it costing a fortune 3) it hurting the pocket book of the citizens. Who do you think will pay for all the proposed things Obama wants? It won't be him. It will be the average Joe who works the perverbial 9 to 5.
- UltraConservative October 22, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.