It's a pity we're all here trying to figure "which poo stinks the worst". And it looks like '08, is yet another "no hoper" election. When will we ever have a REAL leader as President?
I hate to say this but of all the poo, Hillary is the least offensive. I know, I know BUT she has the most experience under a successful administration that did balance the budget and bring in a surplus. She has also done a great job in NY, let's be honest !
Now wait JUST ONE MINUTE.... I don't know what she has done in NY, but the Clinton administration "brought in a surplus" ONLY because (1) was LUCKY to catch the dot.com bubble at the peak and its capital gains taxes, and (2) raised income taxes significantly. She hardly deserves kudos for either. The best America can hope for is a McCain victory and that he has an active veto pen.
Gnome, Bush caught a much bigger housing bubble so it can't only have been luck or the situation would look very different right. As far a McCain goes I don't know anything about the man to be honest all I know is the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Your a man of common sense right? If it ain't broke don't fix it. Clinton worked economically the facts are the facts, forget about why and personal opinions.
This is interesting, which will waste more money, Hillary trying to cure social ills or McCain and the Iraq War. I suppose at least with Hillary we're wasting money on our own people & economy. Relatively speaking smaller social programs are less costly than a war (smaller is of course relative, in relation to a war) In short, which candidate (policies, etc) will result in American in better fiscal shape under their administration? I know the answer is both might leave us in worse financial shape, but which would be less harmful than? (Since I don't like any of the candidates, I'm wondering who does the least amount of damage)
I would hope that McCain would soon be pulling us out of Iraq. We've spent waaayyyy too much money (which we didn't have.. had to "charge it") and received much too little (anything? Besides getting rid of Saddam?) in return. It would be sad if McCain would support "staying the course" in Iraq just because he doesn't wan to kick dirt on the Bush legacy. That would be doing wrong and for the wrong reason... normal SOP for our politicos, sadly.
imo, most of the cost calculated for the war is returned to US one way or another for instance let's say we dropped 200 of 'type X' bombs (not a real name, just an example), say each costs $10K, so the total cost for that is $2M but those bombs were produced in the US, so even if the government bought them from a private company, US citizens were paid income to produce those, the cost of material wasted would be around $200K (so that is the actual cost for US as a whole) --- another example, say an engineer is paid $200k to go to iraq, that cost is calculated as a war cost, even though (whether the engineer dies or not) that money will most likely be spent in the US, not to forget 35% of that is taxes, which will be returned to the government directly (so the US as a whole has not spent that money, because all of it was internally circulated) ---- and apart from the costs, let's not forgot that a great amount of jobs have been created via the war, large sums of money have been circulated, and we have sent a good number of illegal immigrants to die in iraq
Bush and greenspan created the bubble . Low interest rates and no regulation on lending standards . Lending people 100% loans without checking out there incomes .
You understand don't you, this statement is about as logical as "claiming brilliance because you won the lotto"...