Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
Participantsurveyor, could I get your thoughts re: NYT article? Seems even the Bush Admin is tacking back towards a more pragmatic approach…
Participantsurveyor, could I get your thoughts re: NYT article? Seems even the Bush Admin is tacking back towards a more pragmatic approach…
Participantsurveyor, could I get your thoughts re: NYT article? Seems even the Bush Admin is tacking back towards a more pragmatic approach…
Participantsurveyor, could I get your thoughts re: NYT article? Seems even the Bush Admin is tacking back towards a more pragmatic approach…
Participantcdma,
I can share my rationale. I was ‘R’ throughout the 90’s but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, “Terri Schiavo Syndrome”. As many in my generation (X) are, I’m a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums outCheck out the “Obama is Conservative” thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can’t understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It’s the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We’ve had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60’s and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don’t think I’m being naive here. The rap in the ‘MSM’ is BO’s a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google “Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama”, give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
GParticipantcdma,
I can share my rationale. I was ‘R’ throughout the 90’s but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, “Terri Schiavo Syndrome”. As many in my generation (X) are, I’m a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums outCheck out the “Obama is Conservative” thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can’t understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It’s the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We’ve had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60’s and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don’t think I’m being naive here. The rap in the ‘MSM’ is BO’s a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google “Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama”, give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
GParticipantcdma,
I can share my rationale. I was ‘R’ throughout the 90’s but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, “Terri Schiavo Syndrome”. As many in my generation (X) are, I’m a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums outCheck out the “Obama is Conservative” thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can’t understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It’s the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We’ve had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60’s and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don’t think I’m being naive here. The rap in the ‘MSM’ is BO’s a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google “Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama”, give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
GParticipantcdma,
I can share my rationale. I was ‘R’ throughout the 90’s but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, “Terri Schiavo Syndrome”. As many in my generation (X) are, I’m a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums outCheck out the “Obama is Conservative” thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can’t understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It’s the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We’ve had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60’s and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don’t think I’m being naive here. The rap in the ‘MSM’ is BO’s a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google “Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama”, give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
GParticipantcdma,
I can share my rationale. I was ‘R’ throughout the 90’s but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, “Terri Schiavo Syndrome”. As many in my generation (X) are, I’m a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums outCheck out the “Obama is Conservative” thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can’t understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It’s the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We’ve had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60’s and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don’t think I’m being naive here. The rap in the ‘MSM’ is BO’s a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google “Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama”, give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
GParticipantThe outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.
If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.
OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.
Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.
ParticipantThe outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.
If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.
OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.
Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.
ParticipantThe outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.
If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.
OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.
Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.
ParticipantThe outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.
If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.
OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.
Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.
ParticipantThe outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.
If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.
OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.
Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.
-
AuthorPosts
