this should upset some folks :)
 

:)

I finally figured out why all these college kids, and those just out, voted for Obama. Found this is a Money article questioning whether to charge grown up children rent, when living with their parents:

I would say that the majority of collage educated individuals voted for obama because he had the better plan on how to fix the economy.

Really? What was it, create a 13% GDP deficit?

I don't think that was it. I personally think most college towns are pretty liberal places and kids in and just out of college are very impressionable. They thought things were bad and Obama was preaching change. They bought into the whole "Change" slogan, but didn't really know anything behind it. Plus Obama was very good about having his face and logo everywhere these young adults were as far as TV and internet are concerned. Thus, the whole "American Idol" style popularity campaign.

Also, many of these kids, educated or not, know nothing about the real world. That is why a bunch of them will probably change their voting style in the next election or two as they eventually wise up and realize the ramifications of their voting actions instead of falling for some sort of hollow, utopian slogan of change.

I'm not sure one can say that the youth vote carried Obama to victory. There were other key factors (i.e the Latino Vote, Women Vote, etc) whom must of also "bought into the whole Change slogan". I think it had more to do with the fact that the Republican party was/is out of touch with its citizens and is still stuck with the America of yesteryears.....

Just look at the Republicans, they even alienated their only candidate that actually had it right (Ron Paul).

I was just referring to your comment where you said "the majority of college educated individuals voted for obama because he had the better plan on how to fix the economy". I don't think that is why that particular group of people voted for Obama. That is all.

Correct. This is why you're now seeing a sharp poll drop on Obama, from the mid-60s he won with to the low-50s he is in just 6 months later. BTW, deficit when Bush left was around 4% GDP, far less than the 13% we're in now. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't take out loans to pay my annual costs :)

It might be a little unfair to blame the global economic crisis on Obama. Rather like saying there was only a little blaze but when the fire-chief arrived the whole building was burning.

Obama was handed a failing economy and was forced to take drastic action in order to prevent either a complete meltdown, or a decade or more of stagflation (per most economists and experts).

Up until the very end, much of Bush's spending, as in Iraq, was elective. He was handed a relatively thriving economy that nearly collapsed by the time he left.

IMHO, one of the few things that Bush did right was to sign the bailout bill. Obama had no objections; in fact he worked to gain support for the bill.......:popcorn:

I haven't seen anyone blame the global economic crisis on the new president. I believe much of this debate involves the fact that we don't agree with his actions (or maybe even his being there in the first place). Yes, there were things that needed fixed but tossing coins at it (blindly) especially in this magnitude is definitely not the answer. If it had nearly collapsed before Bush even left, where are we now?

What exactly would a 'meltdown' look like, high unemployment...crashing dollar value...bankrupt companies, housing crisis, treasury bond issues and the federal reserve stuck at 0% and borrowing money from ourselves?

It is the utter lack of planning and the magnitude of mistakes that is the problem. Example from today, "Cash for Clunkers" suspended after less than a week because it already blew through its funding...

Cash for Clunkers may go on hold until DOT sorts things out - Jul. 30, 2009

I don't think anyone questions Obamas intention to 'do good' it is his methods that are horrible. And the argument that 'nobody else had a better idea' doesn't make his a good one. Similar to the whole health care debate "the majority thinks we need to fix the US health care system" doesn't mean they agree with Obamas solutions.

Regarding the lack of a "plan" from the McCain camp, if the media wasn't so one sided, and if Obama, you know, actually started on the road to fiscal responsiblity by going with the public funding option for this campaign instead of outspending McCain by more than double, maybe we would have been able to hear more of what McCain was proposing.

At no time during the campaign did I hear anything that even resembled a solid fix for the economy. He did promise a tax cut for 95% of Americans, and promised to punish the rich (forgetting that the rich buy a lot of stuff and employ a lot of people, such as those right out of college, but I digress). I'm still wondering where that tax cut. And regards to the bailouts, that worked out real well for GM, now didn't it? And about that stimulus plan that we have barely even spent 10% of the funds? Is that our solution, to have the government spend more money? Nowhere in the world of economics does government spending create wealth.

If Obama was truly serious about fixing the economy, and not on imposing additional taxes and fees such as those in the c(r)ap and tax bill, he would cut the capital gains tax, and give everyone a nice big reduction in taxes, or a nice big rebate check. And cut taxes especially on the hard hit small businesses. Only by giving the people the funds can you create wealth, and thereby create prosperity. The people can much quicker distribute wealth to others by purchasing stuff and investing. Government by its nature is slow and inefficient.

And simply blaming the current financial crisis only on Bush is certainly very wrong. Sometimes, and by sometimes I mean all of the time, the economy goes through a recession. This is part of the normal business cycle. And given that Bush raised doubts about the expansion of programs that would give undeserving borrowers the chance to buy a house increased demand and therefore raised prices. Of course, those borrowers did not have the long term ability to pay. All it took was some loss of real estate value which started happening around 2006 to reveal that all of those mortgages were paper thin, and when they could no longer flip them, they had no way out.

Some more reading material...
The Culprit Is All of Us - Barrons.com

I leave you with this:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g.../chitrib34.jpg

Wow, it's unbelievable how many on the left actually believe this....:confused:

Come on everybody, we can spend our way out. We will make up the losses in volume.