Why Obama Should Not Be the Next President of USA

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

but it's fascinating that Obama was favored by college-aged voters by a 58:40 margin . . . since he was favored by all voters at a 58:41 margin.

Very good point (proof how statistics are not as transparent as they seem)! I think that maybe the other articles highlight that it might be more of an educational difference for white voters, although I have to admit that I haven't looked up the original statistics used as bases for those articles. Touche, though.

And I've never been called a dude in real life. Maybe it is supposed to be okay and gender neutral, but "dude" felt as awkward as when someone on here calls me a "he." I'm just as bad, though, because for the longest time I thought MysticCat was a woman and Dionysus was a man (I know, the login name should have been clue #1).

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

ETA: Sorry Ksig... I realized now that you weren't the one who was setting up my argument as a strawman. It was DSTC... my other post was responding to her reply to me that some Obama supporters aren't well informed. That's true, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

This was my only point. You just chose to respond and attempted to expound on something that is already clear as day.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah but I'm not an economist so it's a big bunch of not my job to some extent.

Though I'd love to see a balanced budget I really don't think anyone could do it these days. Once you feed a bureaucracy money, it only grows bigger and far too many presidents have done so for far too long. Maybe NASA needs to sell more space tourist rides or something. Plus if the federal government stops spending, a lot of states are going to be in trouble. They rely on federal matching funds for nearly all basic functions from education to interstate repair to medicaid/medicare.

It has been that long since we had a balanced budget. Well, 2000.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...inton.surplus/

[Drolefille]

Booming economy vs. our current not quite a recession yet we hope one?

It was also a GOP Congress with a Democratic president meaning nothing that either of them wanted was really getting done. And no war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Balancing the budget is easy, raise taxes.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Balancing the budget is easy, raise taxes.

Yes, this always pulls up a struggling economy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

So many students here are idealists and don't actually consider what real life is like.

Because most of them -- the idealists and the college Republicans -- haven't really experienced real life yet.

It's a good thing that we have such a strong government set up. Even Barack wouldn't be able to run America into the ground in just four years.

Agreed. I mean, Bush has been trying for 8 years, yet the Republic still survives.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yes, this always pulls up a struggling economy.

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Agreed. I mean, Bush has been trying for 8 years, yet the Republic still survives.

LOL!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I guess I set myself (and poor George!) up for that one...

Yeah, you really did . . . it was just too easy.

And I'd agree that most college students- republicans too - haven't experienced real life yet. I still live off my parents, but at least I have some sense of practicality.

I imagine you do, and I would guess that lots of college students do. I think I did in college. But even with some understanding of real life gleaned from parents and limited experience, it's just different when you get out and have to make it on your own.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

I just read this article and the last line in it reminded me of your post (to paraphrase, the math is easy, the politics are hard). Frankly, just the size numbers we're talking about gives me a headache. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/22/news...ey_mostpopular

The 44th president's $4 trillion headache
The candidates want to do things like reduce taxes and fix health care. But they'll have to deal with the cold realities of the federal budget.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 22 2008: 3:07 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The presidential candidates all have big plans for their time in the White House. Reform health care. Reduce taxes. Close corporate loopholes. Encourage savings. The list goes on.

Like college graduates whose career choices may be limited by their student loan debt, however, the next president could be constrained by the federal budget. ... whole story at link above ...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It wasn't meant to. The concept of "balancing the budget" is taking in more than you spend (none of this addresses the national debt of course). It's just the opposite of losing weight which is taking in less than you burn off.

Theoretically both are simple, in reality they're not that easy.

This doesn't make any sense - if you balance the budget, you are indeed "addressing the national debt" because the surplus can go toward recouping debt. I don't see how these can be severed.

Obviously there are dozens of factors at work, such as trade/inflationary benefits to staying a debtor, the dangers of China pegging its currency to the dollar, whatever - but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of math. Having a surplus -> lowering debt.

I have no idea why you're being so dismissive here - budget concerns seem perfectly valid, given the litany of new programs on both the Obama and Clinton platforms and the state of the economy.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This doesn't make any sense - if you balance the budget, you are indeed "addressing the national debt" because the surplus can go toward recouping debt. I don't see how these can be severed.

Obviously there are dozens of factors at work, such as trade/inflationary benefits to staying a debtor, the dangers of China pegging its currency to the dollar, whatever - but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of math. Having a surplus -> lowering debt.

I have no idea why you're being so dismissive here - budget concerns seem perfectly valid, given the litany of new programs on both the Obama and Clinton platforms and the state of the economy.

I'm talking the difficulty both politically and economically of juggling a struggling economy (which was the part where "it wasn't meant to" was aimed), the needs of those below the poverty line, the needs of the middle class that, even if they're not buying everything on credit, is struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck, and the wants of those who don't "need" anything anymore.

Any budget surplus we might have from actually balancing the budget will not make a dent in the national debt. The budget surpluses of the past have been saved for other things, not spent on paying down our principal.

Budget concerns are completely valid, and if the plans that any of the candidates, including McCain since he's not really appearing to be a fiscal conservative, are completely impossible based on the money, they won't happen. That will sort itself out and either party is likely to put us in greater debt, not less. As complex as the government is, it takes an economist who's studied it for a length of time to actually address whether things will save or cost money in the long run. I could posit that a national health care system, one that focuses on prevention, will actually save money in the long run due to the lack of the uninsured coming in to the ER instead of a doctor's office. But I don't know that one way or the other so I'm not really going to guess.

To balance the budget we could tax everyone more, but most people do not want that. Even though that's the very simple answer.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This made my day! Can I just say how much I love this! (I know it's kinda old but...)