Printable View
With Mitt Romey "Suspending" his bid for the White House and Presumably ending his bid for the nomination, the question now is, if he has or does drop out can either Barack Obmama or Hillary Vlinton beat John Mccain, this is based un the assumption that Mike Huckabee has less then zero chance to get the nomination, any feedback is appriciated
That any but huckabee will do about a thousand times better for regular Americans then the Bushites
my instinacts tell me and I have not made any decsion myself yet, but my instinct say Barack Obmama will win it all he will be the JFK of this genenerationanfthose tot comeQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Russell
Between Iraq, The Housing Crisis And The Economy, i think the American Populace have had enuogh of Republican Rule after 8 years
I believe many Republicans vote for McCain, because he is the only one who seems to stand a good chance of beating Clinton or Obama. McCain is also far enough from the Bush administration that he will not be tainted by the low approval rates of Bush.
Obama talks on and on about change, but change for change's sake is just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rce
I do not believe he talks about change for change sake, I firmly believe he will make the changes he speasks of but one had to rmember it took the Republicans or Bush 8 years to creat our mess it will not be cleaned up overnigh,t
this says it all
WASHINGTON - The heck with Congress' big stimulus bill. The way to get the country out of recession — and most people think we're in one — is to get the country out of Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery.
The $168 billion economic rescue package Congress rushed to approval this week includes rebates of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, the hope being that they will spend the money and help revive ailing businesses. President Bush is expected to sign the measure next week. Poor wage-earners, as well as seniors and veterans who live almost entirely off Social Security and disability benefits, would get $300 checks.
However, just 19 percent of the people surveyed said they planned to go out and spend the money; 45 percent said they'd use it to pay bills. And nearly half said what the government really should do is get out of Iraq.
Forty-eight percent said a pullout would help fix the country's economic problems "a great deal," and an additional 20 percent said it would help at least somewhat. Some 43 percent said increasing government spending on health care, education and housing programs would help a great deal; 36 percent said cutting taxes.
"Let's stop paying for this war," said Hilda Sanchez, 44, of Waterford, Calif. "There are a lot of people who are struggling. We can use the money to pay for medical care and help people who were put out of their homes."
The subject of leaving Iraq shows a sharp partisan divide — 65 percent of Democrats think it would help the economy a lot, but only 18 percent of Republicans think so.
Just 29 percent of people think putting more money in the hands of the poor would help a great deal in fixing the country's economic problems.
According to many economists, the lower people are on the income ladder, the more probable it is that they will spend a rebate and do it quickly — a shot in the arm for the ailing economy.
In the poll, 61 percent said they think the economy is already in a recession.
"Things are bad, but it will get a lot worse," said Jim Sims, 60, of Greer, S.C.
And Nanette Dahlin, 52, of St. Louis Park, Minn., said the economic stimulus package "would only make a recession less damaging."
The economy nearly stalled in the final three months of last year. Some economists, like the majority of poll respondents, say it may actually be shrinking now, given the strains from a persistent housing slump and a painful credit crunch. The worry is that people and businesses will hunker down further and pull back their spending, sending the economy into a tailspin.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has gotten more forceful in cutting interest rates to spur people to buy more and to energize businesses. And now Republicans, Democrats and the White House have shown rare cooperation in approving relief.
Rebate checks could start showing up in mailboxes in May. However, Sanchez is typical is saying the money will "go automatically to bills." Thirty-two percent said they would save or invest the rebate. Said Sims: "I'm hoping to hold onto it."
Just 19 percent — like Dahlin — said they would spend it, while 4 percent said they would donate it to charity.
Paying off bills or saving the money won't give the economy a quick boost, though it may well be a wise financial decision for many people who are up to their eyeballs in bills.
"What is good for the economy as a whole — spending a rebate — is not the best idea at an individual household level if you are buried in debt," said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. "Issuing rebate checks to give a boost to consumer spending amounts to a Band-Aid over the much bigger problem of consumer debt burdens," he said.
With Wall Street in turmoil, the top economic worry for poll respondents was seeing their nest eggs shrink. Fifty-nine percent said they were worried "a lot" or "some" about seeing the value of stocks and retirement investments drop. Those approaching retirement fretted the most.
Nearly half — 46 percent — said they were worried about being able to pay their bills. This is especially a concern for people whose household incomes are under $50,000, and for minorities. Twenty-eight percent most feared losing their jobs; minorities and those with a high school education or less were especially concerned.
Also, 48 percent of homeowners polled worried that the value of their homes would drop. The housing bust has led to record-high foreclosures, and weaker home values have made people feel less wealthy.
Who deserves most of the blame for the economy's troubles?
More than half — 56 percent — pointed the finger at ******** lenders. Forty-four percent said Bush deserves a lot of the blame. After that come Congress, Wall Street, consumers themselves and in last place the Federal Reserve.
The Fed has the public's confidence that it will be able to right the economy.
More than half — 55 percent — said they have a great deal or some confidence in Fed to turn things around. Forty-one percent said that about Congress, only 28 percent about Bush.
In fact, economic problems have contributed to pulling the president's approval ratings to all-time lows. Only 29 percent approve of his handling of the economy, the lowest mark yet in this polling. Bush's overall job-approval rating slid to 30 percent, also a record low.
The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday this week and involved telephone interviews with 1,006 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
___
8 years of Republican Rule, Fiscal MisManagement, Reckless Foreign Policy Decsions ect are enough we need a change in November
In 8 years in Office Bush tok a 500 billoin dollar Surplus left to him and turned it into a 3.5 Trillion Dollar dedecit and now wanta a 3.1 Trillion dolar budget but Social Programs, take 500billoin from Social SEcurity and other Social sErvice Programs but increase the Defense Department Budget by 5-7% in 2009, I think not I live some Social Security Disablitiy I am Physicaly Unable to work, I do not want my bnenfits vcut, i can barely afford to exsist as it is, $3.00 a gallon of gas ect ect now is the time for change
The worst possible way to figure out how to solve the economic problems of this country, or any problems anywhere, is by polling the American people. Naturally the majority of them are going to blame the government or the banks or the man in the moon! None of them will want to admit that the biggest problem is those same people mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy the latest cell phone, or the fastest computer, or that big screen HDTV for the Superbowl! After all, the banks are willing to bail them out, right?
Well, the fit has hit the shan and the banks aren't bailing them out anymore. Are they going to blame themselves? Not likely! "It's the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the oil industry, or the stock brokers, or the Japanese, or the terrorists or anybody and everybody else, but not ME!"
When the American people learn some financial responsibility, maybe then they will have some ideas about how to fix the economy. Until then, these polls are a waste of time and effort. But at least the pollsters are collecting a salary!
But at least they are expressing there views in a oublic wasy in a free society lie it was said many yearsago "I may not agree with what you said, but I will defend with my life your right to say it"Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
No one is denying them their right to express their views, and no one is denying their right to elect whomever they want. What concerns me is the number of politicians who will be swayed by the polls and will screw things up by trying to follow the advice of people who don't know what they're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Just because most people THINK it's right, doesn't necessarily MAKE it right!
True, but in light of the way things have gone the last 8 years ANYTHING, had to be better then what we have now, I do notthink the Repbilcans have achancein the World to retain the White House, but that is only my viewQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I don't think they do, either. And I'm not a bit sorry to see it! But don't make the mistake of believing that whoever takes over can't be any worse! All we can do is hope that whoever it is WON'T be any worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
When you have a President who says "I listen to my Advisers not the American People" need he forget who put him there, I do NOT remember his advisers placing him in office, first the Suprmeme Court does, this was said in November 2006 when the Democrats took Control Of Congess, but unfortuently not with a Veto Proof Majority, need he forget, I do not REMEMBER his adviser electing him to office (this remark was made after The Dems took overi n November of 2006 after the Ameircan Public spoke up and said enough is enough, yes the current Congres has a lower approval rating then the President, but the fatc that the Deomcrtas listen to the American People and tried to pass variou bits of Legilation that We as People asked for, the Presdient vetos it, but the DEmocrats do not have enough of a Majority to over ridehisvetos, The Dem kept their promises the President did not asstill does not care whatthe American PeopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Even recently with the so called Stimulus Packagem Democrats wanted to add in money for those whosho's unemployment benefits ran ou,t for seniors and pepe who aredisabled, the Presdient said no that is too expsensive, but he did ask for rebates for those who earned up to $150,000 a year, but it was lowered to $85,000, if Bush got his way Bill gateswould be getting $2,200 back for his wife and 2 kids i do no think Bill Gates needs a tax rebate
I live on Social Security disbalitiy, I can use that money ot pay my bills and for food it is not my doing I am disbled that was not part of my life's plan, but it happened, then in his 2009 budget he wants totake 500 billoin from Social SEcurity and sand other Social Service Programs from people who really need the money and services, he will not so this but he will increase the Petagon Budget 5-7%
Let's face it. Bush has and still does cater to the rich, which is contrary to what he said when he declared that he wanted what was best for all americans and that he was a "compassionate conservative." Where was that compassion when he vetoed the Embyonic Research bill, which could help with finding cures for diabetes and other serious diseases? Where was his compassion in helping the Katrina victims? Where was his compassion when he twice vetoed bills that would've increased aid to poor children?
But when it comes to war, he wants more money from Congress. It's pretty obvious what his priorities have been.
That's why we need a change in Washington, and the best person for that is Barack Obama...and I definitely will be voting for him this Tuesday when the primary comes to Maryland.
You are 100% correct on all of thisQuote:
Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6
History proves that fiscal management works best on the federal level in the USA, if the President is of another party than the majority in Congress. Bill Clinton was a Democrat who had to work with a Republican majority in Congress. George W. Bush had a Republican majority until 2006. It looks like there will be a Democrat majority in Congress after the 2008 elections, so for fiscal responsibility, it would be best to have a Republican President.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
What great changes do you see coming, if Obama will be President?Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
let's see. the end of the war Irag, lower drug prices negotiated with companies not just a charge what you want policy that bush has, universal health care, federal funding for stem cell research to help deleop cures for diabettes, parkinsens ect, spend more money on Social Programs here and not sending the money to the Penagon To keep the wars going,, money for mre extensiveaids research, more moneyto fight crime and drug traffiketing, all thmoney is tied iup in the War and the President saud that he plans to deduct or elimiate 500 Billion dollars in the 2009 budget but increase the defense department budget, have someone in this contry in a new adminstration negotiablew with OPEC for lower oil prices, when Clinton left office was was $1.50 a gallon, it is not $3.00+, we had a 500 billloin dllar federal surplus after Clinton Left office, we now have a 3.5 TRILLION dollar defecet, this is just few things that this country needs attention on, this is just part of a new directionQuote:
Originally Posted by rce
I am disbaled i live on a fixed income every 3 weeks i have to decide, do i buy food, gas or medication
The United States has to stop policing the world aand forcing our way on other, we need to take care Of American first, and 1 thing not mentioned above among others is we have an Immigration issue in this country, but our current President has tunnel vision and only see Iraq and Afghanistan, he does notsee the pressong issues in his own country
It is way wierd for me to hear people complain about a 3$/ gallon gas price when I pay about 7.40$ a gallon here in Sweden :p
just a sidenote lol
But what is the dollar value of a US dollar there or are they the same??Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
Most of Europe has high gas prices because of the taxes they charge on the gas. Problem is that the tax pays for a lot of things that we pay other taxes for. Once the systems are understood there really isn't that much difference.
that is absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Russell
our taxes pays for health care for all for example but the difference is quite substantial in any case.
The taxes on gas is probably what makes our cars much smaller in size and with much less fuel consuming engines also
still
3 vs 7.40 is quite a large difference.
we pay 6.40 Swedish Kronor for one US dollar and the gas was last night at 12.30kr/ litre
one gallon is 3.854 litres.
You know, the price of gas in and of itself is meaningless. You have to include the average national income as well. Paying $3 a gallon for gas isn't bad if you're making $200,000 per year, but if you're only bringing down $20,000 it can be quite a hit.
What IS the national income in the US?
I make the equivalent to 50k USdollars a year which is decent but nowhere near great, and those 7.40 a gallon sure hurts me. Not so much as to not fill up my car but it sure feels in the wallet when I fill my car up.
btw. Is it even possible to afford having and using a car with 20k us dollars a year?
this is just my curiosity wanting to know. The differences and similarities between people is always interesting.
I just wanted to know the value of the US Dollar againyour currency to if if we at $3.00 a galon pay thesameammount as you basedon the US dollar where you are, justtrying to make a comparrison as to the vaule ofthe dollar thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
It's POSSIBLE, but difficult. Certainly not likely that someone at that income level could afford a NEW car, nor could they afford to drive extensively for recreational purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
A quick search has found that the mean (average) annual wages in the US is $35,499 (235,136kr) but the median income is only $24,325 (155,680kr) based on 2005 figures. However, the variations from state to state, even from city to city within one state, can be extreme. As can the costs of living.
Just for informational purposes, I did the following calculations based on our combined NET income (take-home pay) for 2007:
Fuel for 2 cars and 2 drivers, 3.2%
Groceries for 2 adults, 9.4%
Medical payments for 2 adults (beyond our insurance coverage) 6.0%
I don't claim that these are representative of the US population. We didn't take any long trips road last year, and we are fairly healthy.
I am in the United States my income is under 20k yeari havea usedcar,but keeping itrunnig insuredand in gas isvery difficulkttodo, buti simply limit all myerrandst one dayof theweek, if i do notgethat i need on that day i waittil thefollowingweek i do not driveanywherei do not need to foranyy reason exceptfor a medical emergencyQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
but yes it is possiblebut very, very difficult, I amdisblied i have a fixed incomebut makeitwork, not much fun but it does
Back to the election, it looks like Obama is on a roll. However, I'm not counting Hillary out yet. I do believe Texas and Ohio are critical. If the Senator from Illinois wins both of them, I think the writing will be on the wall.
I also heard on the new this morinig (Saturday Today Show NBC) that alot of Super Delegates are now starting to switch to Obama from Clinton for various reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6
As 1 anaylist said as far a Texas goes this will be Hillaries either Waterloo or Alamo, she loses Texas it could very well be over for her
then one has to ask, can Obama beat Mccain??
Yes, that would be a close election in my opinion. McCain's an ex POW who supported Bush on Iraq. That could work for him or against him. He's also not as conservative as Bush on domestic issues, which hasn't endeared him to the right wingers. But the way I look at it is, if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like him, he must be alright in my book.
I do think that Obama is a much more dynamic speaker than McCain, which would win any debates the two will have.
I do think that these two are the best candidates in either party, so as they say, stay tuned.