Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (257246)	2/22/2008 12:43:05 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

From listening to Obama last night, I gather he is not planning to invest his Iraq 'peace dividend' in debt reduction. So the debt spiral will continue, with payments to big unending govt programs instead of the war.

To: Katelew who wrote (257246)	2/22/2008 12:50:02 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

What I like about these two candidates is that they are, or at least claim to be moderate enough to consider balance and constructive change, and a willingness to reach across for good ideas. Neither extreme is called for at this time. "But ending the war and raising taxes on the rich will bring in huge amounts of revenues. It's a fact. Get used to it." Taxing the rich sounds simple but tax revenue must be drawn responsibly. The wealthy and productive corporations provide needed jobs, supporting service industries, and opportunity for wage earners to invest and spend. Over taxing wealth could cripple that ability to provide industrial and corporate opportunity, and future entrepreneurships . Ending war without fiscal planning would bring about an economic collapse. We have the greatest superpower military the world has ever known, which is not just an economic drain it is an industrialized economic organization. A huge one. I'm not saying that is good or bad but dismantling it would completely devastate the economic stability of the globe. Its nice to think voting for one or the other of these candidates would reverse economic trends to a positive direction and I would like to see the case for each of them doing that laid out. I haven't seen it from either.

To: Katelew who wrote (257246)	2/22/2008 1:15:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Vote for McCain and you have a continuation of Bush policies and increasing, unsustainable debt levels. This is a certainty. McCain is one of the few Senators with a credible trackrecord against earmarks and runaway spending. He's a fiscal conservative. Vote for Obama and you have the POSSIBILITY of reversing the coming debt spiral Obama has no track record except to vote the liberal party line. Since when does the liberal party line - now promising universal free health care for everybody and free college scholarships and who knows what else - have anything to do with control of spending? I mean, anything? Unless you are thinking in pure Keynsian terms that the government is going to stimulate its way out by borrowing and spending more hundreds of billions of dollars? But ending the war and raising taxes on the rich will bring in huge amounts of revenues. It's a fact. Get used to it. It's not a fact. First, it hasn't happened. Second, the Laffer curve, which has actually happened, is a fact, and you're still denying its existence. You think raising taxes on "the rich" (notice how he never defines "rich", cause it's going to be anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year) will raise revenue. I think it will rerun the stagflation of the 1970s. I have history on my side. You have pure wish fulfillment. Oh, btw the way, cutting and running from Iraq and throwing all the gains there into the garbage is not going to be cost free. If we do that, we will have to return under worse circumstances later because if we want to keep the global economy functioning at all we cannot let religious fanatics shut down the Persian gulf and stop the flow of oil. But then Obama knows nothing about foreign policy except what Jimmy Carter's retreads are telling him. And weren't they such a success? Are you old enough to remember what happened to the Carter Presidency when it hit Washington, full of hope and promises of change? And Jimmy Carter had at least been a governor!