Who's your pick for President - Obama or McCain?
Discuss why, especially from an economic/business perspective.
Answers
245 points
Dusty answered 3 months ago …
Senator Obama is a talking head. He has no experience at all, no understanding of anything, no real knowledge. He is a personable presence who will be a front for the 'powers behind the throne.' The powers want total control of everything and All money/wealth in their possession.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin have both been in places and positions that created real skills and knowledge; their records and performance clearly shows real capabilities.
Successful buissniss and/or investing requires a manageable playing field. The Republican ticket gives some possibility that the United States will continue to have that. The Democratic ticket is just beginning a steeper dive toward oblivion.
202 points
Lobo answered 3 months ago …
As a registered Democrat I doubt if anyone would call me a right wing radical conservative, yet I see myself as having been left behind by the current Democratic philosophies. I would leave most of the social issues of this age to the States. Legislatures are elected by the citizens, then they pass laws and will be answering to the people each election. U.S. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. If I'm not exactly a conservative, I definitely am not a liberal and I see judges promoting their own political agendas in their supposedly legal decisions. They are destroying the checks and balances of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. That is the most frightening threat to our constitution, culture and country to confront us, the most frightening among many real frights.
Economically, taxes seem to be an issue dividing the political parties. While Obama says he will only raise taxes on the rich, i.e., those making $250,000.00, plus other miscellaneous taxes that do add to the burdens of most of us with salaries well below that amount, still I am old enough to recall Clinton's promises that were similar sounding, but I remember well being a younger middle class man with family trying to grow my fledgling small business. Despite all the promises to help me in the middle income brackets my taxes, and yours if applicable, were raised beginning in July, but put in effect retroactively back to January of that year. It hurt! It had a huge financial impact on the health of the business, with my share of the employees payroll taxes having to paid retroactively also. I put no faith whatsoever in the campaign promises to tax only the rich.
My position about drilling for oil appears to be similar to T. Boone Pickens. We need to gear up with nuclear energy, wind and solar, clean coal, ocean tides related generators, etc, etc. But these things are not ready and our national wealth is being transfered with outrageous speed to countries that don't like us. It will not take 10 years to see our own oil and refineries relieving us from $4.00 gasoline, as certain politicians tell us. Knowledgeable people know it would be more like 4-5 years. But whatever time it takes, it is insane to delay drilling immediately where the oil is and make all the progress we can to be less foreign oil dependent. Oil prices have had a significant impact on our economy and the Stock Market. I repeat, it is insane to turn out the lights and take a 5 week vacation. When Pelosi and her crew return there will be delay after delay before taking some inadequate action. They will talk big about drilling because the polls of the citizens surely must scare them, but little action will take place. Remember, Congressional approval ratings are below the low ratings for the President.
Now, in regard to our economic crisis when home mortgage foreclosures and failing banks are in the headlines, it is such a cruel, heartless position to let people and bank executives, etc., be responsible for the mess they put themselves in. Is it? Is it anymore cruel and heartless than to "change" this country into a European Socialist economic system for the working people who will be paying for the non-working ones. My grandchildren, who are excellent students in good non-public schools, will have a great future if allowed to work hard and keep a fair portion of the fruits of their labor. Why must we rush to "change" our economic system that has done well for most of us who paid attention and did our homework and strived to advance and save what we could for the future?
Hollywood and European billionaires are capable of great phrases in praise of raising U.S. taxes, yet I feel very confident in saying that most if not all of them wanting the rich to pay more spend a great deal of time in meeting with their CPAs and tax attorneys. Because of shelters and tax avoidance measures, they may honestly think we're not paying enough. Then, from Congress's perspective, when taxing the rich doesn't raise enough to pay for the beautiful spending projects the definition of rich comes down to catch all of us who don't have or can't afford all those fancy tax avoidance resources. In summary, they can't make life better by raising taxes and decreasing our incomes. Our freedom based economic system has given us one of the world's highest standards of living. Socialism has proven itself a failure; it brings the level for all down to a standard of common misery.
3127 points
EthanR answered 3 months ago …
Can I vote (C), none of the above?
Both candidates fall short on many fronts. Obama reminds me of a college sophmore taking his first philosophy or political science class, and then telling the relatives at Thanksgiving dinner how they need to give up their evil capitalistic ways. Less than one year as a U.S. Senator, and a state senator and community organizer fall well below the experience level we need in the President of the U.S. Basically Obama was elected because the Democratic machine misjudged that the American people would role over for Hillary. Obama is simply the Emperor's new clothes, 2008 style.
As for McCain, he is about as inspiring as left over peas. If I do vote for him, it would only be because of Palin, but liking the Vice President is really not enough of a reason to vote for someone for President. Although McCain has much more experience than Obama, his stance on immigration and his stance (up until his recent flip flop) on oil exploration, leave me yearning for another candidate. And his admission a few months ago that the economy is not his strong point, is really scary. Will the economy be worse off in four years than it is right now?
And yet, could either of these guys do worse than Bush has done on the economy? I believe that McCain will be effective, as Bush was, on terrorism threats, but that's about all I think he is good for. Bush has been as lame a duck as you can be for the past few months. But at least he won't steal everything not nailed down from the White House, as a certain other President before him did.
The next four years should be very interesting.
951 points
Grudun answered 3 months ago …
Like most Americans(over 66%) I lean towards none of the above. However given only the choice of Obama vs. McCain I have to favor McCain.
In addition to other points mentioned above, he is actually proposing cutting the federal budget(not as much as is needed but some). He also is listening to advisors with an understanding of the Laffer curve. But to me the most important thing is that there will be apposing parties in the legislature and the presidency which should result in effective gridlock which will hopefully prevent any economy destroying shifts in policy like a new war or carbon taxes. Plus he actually has a plan that COULD balance the budget.
209 points
Sensei answered 3 months ago …
I've already given most of my thinking on this matter in a previous response and I agree with many of the comments already made. There is, however, one very important point which the biased left-wing press doesn't want to address (because they're so "in the tank" for Obama) but which I think is probably more important than what they like to blather about.
Read ANY good book on what constitutes leadership skills. Without exception every single one of them states that a fundamental characteristic of a great leader is that he mentors his successor. So, what do we have here?
Obama, at age 48 has chosen a 65 year old as his running mate. Regardless of what you think about Biden, the FACT is that, if Obama wins he'll run for re-election. Heaven help the Democrat who dares run against him - including "Her (self appointed) Majesty"! If he's wins, his "running mate" will likely try to "capture the flag" for the Dems. At that point, he'll be 73. What will be the argument then? That a 72 year old Republican is "too old", but a 73 year old Democrat is just fine? Probably. But even Wolf Blitzer would have a hard time with that one.
If there is any question of Obama's judgment - or lack thereof - this underscores it. For a whole host of reasons, the Democratic ticket is upside down. (Then again, Biden didn't get past Iowa.) But I digress ...
McCain on the other hand has made the political coup de grace of our times. He's picked an attractive (let's not minimize that folks ... looks count), bright, articulate woman with experience on both the legislative and executive level. And she's a "quick study". CNN notwithstanding, McCain isn't about to drop dead tomorrow and what she doesn't know yet, she'll learn. If McCain wins and decides not to run for re-election, in 2012 the Republicans will have a candidate who is ...
1. 48 years old (Obama's age now)
2. a former municipal representative
3. a former mayor
4. a former State's governor
5. the "current" Vice President
and last, but certainly not least ...
6. a WOMAN!!!!
You wanna run against those credentials? Good luck! See ya in 2020.
Hillary? Don't make me laugh. What's Hillary got? A failed attempt in 2008 - her appeal to women (and to hell with men) notwithstanding? Bill? Monica? That "cackle"? Feminists? Hillary's weak, unsuccessful and gutless. Her entire career from law school to date is predicated on who her husband is. (Ask her former partners at the Rose Law Firm.) If she wasn't married to Bill, you wouldn't know her name. (Speaking of which, and as an aside ... how come during Willy-boy's years as The Prez it was "Rodham-Clinton" and now it's just "Clinton"? No more Rodham? What's that about?)
Palin is strong, determined, smart and successful. She's the model for American women and if "Her Highness" tries to run against her, Palin will eat her for breakfast. And this time Clinton won't be able to hide behind her skirt and cry "I'm a woman" like she did when she ran for the Senate against Rick Lazio.
By selecting Palin, McCain has shown true leadership in several ways. By selecting Biden, Obama has shown exactly why he shouldn't be in the White House. He's just not up to the job. He doesn't know how to be a leader - never mind Commander In Chief.
209 points
Sensei answered 3 months ago …
I just realized that the 4th sentence in the 3rd paragraph is disjointed. Sorry. I don't mean to steal 2 points but it should read ...
"If he wins (re-election), his "running mate" (Biden) will likely try to "capture the flag" for the Dems in 2016. At that point, he'll be 73."
360 points
SirCrashton answered 2 months ago …
I'm not happy with either choice. EthanR got it right in his article, "Does it still pay to excel in America?" when he lamented the rise of mediocrity as the acceptable standard in all areas of life .
I can understand Lobo's frustration as a registered Democrat: the party has been taken over by radical left-wing socialists. The proof can be seen in the fact that most of the Southern states favored G.W. Bush and currently favor McCain. The Democrats have abandoned the traditional values held by the majority of Southerners: 2nd Amendment freedom; religious faith; states' rights; family values. Once upon a time the "Solid South" meant solidly Democratic in any given election. Moreover, Obama's voting record reveals him to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate.
Between the two lightweight candidates, I prefer Senator John McCain, primarily because my personal feeling is that Senator Obama cannot be trusted. When questioned on "Meet the Press" last year, Senator Obama stated that his record in the Illinois state legislature was available in the Illinois State Archives. The truth is the Senator never asked the ISA to archive any of his records: conveniently, there is no paper trail of his legislative activities.
He claims to be a Christian but his position on abortion, gay rights, and affiliation with a racist pastor--until the media called him on that point--demonstrate that he is either a monumental hypocrit or he doesn't even know what a Christian is.
His affiliation with and support from Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Nadhim Auchi indicate that the Senator has no ethics and that he is in the game, not to serve, but primarily for money and power. (The following websites will bring you up to speed regarding these three men: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko>;
<http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020362.php>; and <http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/33451.html>;).
It is no secret that he favors raising taxes and, given the massive federal deficits we face, higher taxes may be unavoidable. However, he doesn't propose to cut spending. Spending cuts are essential if the spiraling national debt is to be brought under control. His battle cry is "Change" but, so far, the only thing I've seen him do in that vein is to change his mind depending on which way the political winds blow.
117 points
driver answered 2 months ago …
Here, here! I agree with about everything that's been said so far. Kudo's to you all. Obama scares me if he gets elected too. He's never done anything but blow his horn about how great he is but fails to mention (as do the liberal press and commentators) that he's never put one piece of legislation up to be considered for a vote. On every vote that's come up he's sided with the far left, not showed up to cast a vote or voted "present" instead of making a commited stand. He says he'll only tax the rich, he'll provide health care for eveyone, he'll impose a wind fall tax on corporations etc, etc. He doesn't mention that when all that is implemented it will be all of the working and retired workers that will be funding all his hand outs to the welfare recipients, immigrants and paying more for less for everything we purchase because he increased corprate taxes. DDDDDDuh!!!!!!
Read more from driver flag as abuse great answer111 points
moihyvong answered 2 months ago …
I was born with Rep. in my blood, so there is no questions asked, whom I voted for.
I also read another articles on www.financialsense.com (back to begining of 2008), and there are many discussions in details about 2 candidates, and there was a thing so called "Patriot tax" which Obama already acted on it, all the way. It mentioned that if any businesses didnot want to do they were told by Obama, then they should be ready for the punishment. This info scared the heck out of me. Why?
It sounds exactly like Dictatorship, and under communist leadership? If you 'd like to take that chance (change for bad) then vote for Obama.
On the top of that, Obama has no "real" experience and proven records that he is ready for the job in this crucial time for the country.
Everyone had witnessed recession, then depression, and our economy might end up with another Great Depression (like in 1930s), but this time is with hyper-inflation.... not far .... a couple yrs from now.
2703 points
MNSL answered 2 months ago …
Generally, investors think republicans are business friendly. However, stock market has performed positively during the period of Democratic.
It is very difficult to come to conclusion unless we give them an opportunity to see how they manage the economy.
Both political parties have weaknesses as well as strengths.
It looks like Senator McCain and Governor Palin have made good combination. This combination has made some positive developments to the Republican Party.
Both parties talk about reduction of tax. I think if Senator McCain becomes president, there will positive developments in the energy sector. That means there will be sharp decline in commodity prices including oil (more than, if Senator Obama wins).
After the presidential election commodity, market will go down further and some companies and industries will benefit most. In the fourth quarter and next financial year, some companies will make outstanding results.
Companies and banks exposure to commodities will have a tough time ahead and some hedge funds and banks exposure to commodity will collapse sooner than later.
Both governments will take further action to control inflation. USA dollar will go up further toward end of this year we will see rally in the stock market. Some sectors and companies will benefit most after presidential election
In short, presidential election will be very close contest. It will similar to last presidential election.
Who ever becomes next president I think they will give priority for the following economic problems
Higher inflation.
Higher commodity prices including oil
Financial market (I think they will take appropriate action to prevent economic problems such as subprime, housing bubble and commodiy bubble in the future)
There are some positive energy policies in both camps.I think after the presidential election we will see dramatic fall in the commodity market.As a result of this not only consumers, investors but also many industries will benefit most except energy speculators and top banks exposure to commodity market.
102 points
rchuajr answered 2 months ago …
I am for McCain for a reason. The Democrats are pulling our troops as soon as they are elected!!! Have you seen someone telling a hoodlum "You guys behave otherwise I would leave you alone to do what you want" - so much for being "experts in foreign policy" These guys do not have any experience militarily so they think it's no sweat as far as they are concerned. McCain has and "he has the scars to prove it"
Read more from rchuajr flag as abuse great answer408 points
SallyG answered 2 months ago …
Well, I'm the dissident. The Reps. gave away the "no experience" point when McCain picked Palin as candidate for VP. Her experience and record need to be explored much more than they seem to have been. It's one thing to want to outlaw abortion except to save the mother; it's another to take responsibility for the new baby for 18 or 20 years (and if you're forcing a woman to give birth, that, it seems to me, should be your responsibility). If you're not willing to do one, you shouldn't do the other. Both political parties should call for more education in pregnancy and STD prevention (and Obama has stated that he would like to see abortion become less frequent). Statistics show that when more options in contraception are available, and infant mortalitiy decreases, women are more likely to have fewer babies overall, and especially fewer unwanted babies, thus imposing less of a burden on society.
Neither more drilling nor alternative energy is likely to produce an immediate effect on energy independence, but a voluntary national conservation effort with a focus on patriotism will cut our use in the short term while more sustainable choices are developed. To damage areas such as the ANWR for a short-term fix does not honor our obligations to be stewards of our resources for future generations.
With Social Security and Medicare in such a weak position, I do believe that every American citizen should pay SS taxes on their full salary amount--and the very wealthy will avoid the full effect by getting compensation through other methods. The burden of employee health care costs should be reduced on businesses, especially small businesses. For our healthcare system to be #37 in the world in a national disgrace; I subscribe to the Physicians for a National Health Program (www.phnp.org) method of fixing that: put all 303,800,000 of us in one risk pool, the healthy along with the chronically ill, the young with the old, and you will naturally stop for-profit companies from shirking their responsibilities to long-term premium payers who happen to change jobs after becoming ill (what was covered suddenly becomes a "previous condition" and an excuse to turn away an individual. Medicare's expenses are so great in large part because most of their clients are elderly, and a large percentage of medical expenses come at the end of life. If more people of all ages were covered, and what today is paid in premiums to private insurance companies was instead paid to a single national insurer (i.e., Medicare), the cost per person would go down. Single-payer doesn't mean socialized; the same choices of doctors and hospitals would still be available, but every office across the country could use the same claim form, so an administrator would not have to learn to fill out claim forms from a dozen or more insurance companies to avoid them being rejected. That "found time" could be used on patient relations, checking for potential drug interactions, etc.
104 points
jbomber78 answered 2 months ago …
Hahahaha, Palin?! Really? PALIN!? Hahahahahaa!
This is the same Sarah Palin who believes that the earth is 4000 years old, that Global Warming is a myth, that seeing Russia from an island in Alaska counts as foreign policy experience, that LYING about the Bridge to Nowhere and then keeping the money from that failed bridge were both good ideas, that firing the police chief who wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband was acceptable, who couldn't tell us what the Bush Doctrine was, who believes that GOD wants us in the Middle East, and who begs for privacy in her personal life while vowing to destroy our own once elected, and (most egregiously) believes that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life.
Is THAT the Sarah Palin you're talking about?
Look any of these things up. All the information is readily available if you're willing to listen to more than GOP soundbites.
McCain/Palin would be the death knell for this country. Just say the words "President Palin" and tell me your blood doesn't run cold.
104 points
jbomber78 answered 2 months ago …
As for McCain - saying "The economy is fundamentally strong" while the bloodbath on Wall Street continues, says it all. The man is totally and unarguably out-of-touch with reality.
Read more from jbomber78 flag as abuse great answerMore from this Category
Will the FDIC increased limit of $250,000 be extended into 2009?Asked by DaveDiggz in Economics 4 days ago
Is this $800 billion package in addition to the $700 billion announced last month?Asked by Market101 in Economics 6 days ago
Do you think the U.S. Fed should lower interest rates again?Asked by OptionsZone in Economics 2 weeks ago
