What Presidential Candidate Can Save Our Economy?

Griff0rd

TNA Moderator

My problem with Romney is he is putting all of this money into a media campaign that is not even winning. He is putting millions into it and is barely beating out Huckabee, which has been pretty timid with overdoing it in the media, and instead is getting his votes from a solid campaign. I have to say if I am voting in the republican race right now, it is Huckabee based on the fact that he is pretty solid across the board and his views on insourcing more to make ourselves self sufficient and taxing more on outsourcing will be a great road to take for a more long term annwer to economic issues.

I also like the fact that he is a republican that can appeal to the democrats as well. Look at his surroundings in AR when he was voted into a Democratic controlled state govt. The guys is good at what he does.

Inogenius

I think what people don't like about Romney, is he doesn't really say what he's going to do. He takes a business approach, which I like, to running the nation. He wants to call in the experts on immigration. He wants to call in the experts on the war. He wants to take the smartest people on the topics he wants to accomplish, and get it done. But the American people want a hero, who has the answer for everything, and there's no one out there who can do that.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

What you are describing is what George W. Bush did....and it we saw how that worked out.

Invictus

Non of the Presidental candidates in this election have a chance of changing the US economy if they don't move away from the idea of consumer spending fueling the economy. The entire reason for the Bush's tax cuts last month was to inject some money into the consumer economy but this is meerly papering over the cracks and will not do anything to improve the US fiscal issue.

Ending the war in Iraq for the sake of expense will not work, they'll end up back there again sorting out a civil war if they pull out anytime soon and another redeploment is the last thing they want. The US needs to get better at exporting its goods and relying on trading merchant (i.e. exports and imports) revenue rather than simply giving out money that you hope to see again through sales taxes which is what props up the US economy in these stimulus packages.

Only problem is, when the people getting the taxes use to pay down debt which in the current climate is likely, then you've given away part of your budget approrpiaton for nothing.

Also I think regardless, you'll get McCain, Clinton or Obama, Romney is too far behind in the polls for me to have a chance Super Tuesday.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

One of the major problems with our economy is outscourcing and owner ship of a lot of companies in the U.S. by foreign companies. All of our money is going over seas and while CEO's are getting rich, the middle class in America is dissappearing.

We can no longer afford the war in Iraq and at the very least we are going to have cut spending over theif we ever hope to revive our economy. We have a $9 trillion national defecit and we have $77 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities.

We need someone who is going to drastically change the way we do things. I think there is only one man for the job and you only need to look at my sig or avatar to see what that is.

Invictus

But McCain is the only one who seems to acknowledge the fact that whilst you might not agree with the goings on in Iraq, by cutting fnding or withdrawing before the job is done is simply going to make things worse and create problems down the road.

Also your making gthe situation sound worse than it is because the unfunded liabilities are held by foreign allies like Japan, the UK and the EU. We invest in the dollar to keep inflation low and to help us with our trade markets like the Nikkai and the Stock Exchange, the only way these countries dump their dollars and call in the loans is if a 1932 esq crash occured and then we'd all be in the shit anyway.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

Let me pose this question to you. What if America had stayed in Vietnam 10 more years? Would we have accomplished anything else over there except getting more of our troops killed. Very unlikely.

Iraq is a lost cause and if we stay there 100 years it is not going to get much better.

You are making the situation sound better than it is. We are in worse debt than anytime in our history and there is no way we can pay it back. The U.S. Comptroller General has said the same thing. We are in big trouble unless drastic changes are made.

Invictus

But you don't have to pay most of it back. It's held by foreign investors to keep their economy afloat. Japan and the EU are technically owed billions of dollars which the US used to secure funding the late 90s and early 20th Century, but these countries can't ask for the money back because then it would not only sink the US economy but in turn their own. I live in the UK and the London Stock Exchange is valued against the dollar. If the London Stock Exchange begins to call in the loans that are owed to them by the USA then the value of the FTSE, NASDAQ, NIKKAI companies would crumble because they are valued on the value of the dollar so it is in everyone's better interest if those owed money by American don't ask for it back.

As for the Vietnam question, I don't argue hypertheticals but as for Iraq things are getting better, if you read the NATO and Red Cross wires, the majority of the country is rebuilding and getting on with life, its just the militant sections of the Northern territories who are causing the problems, similar to NI during the 70s.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

The Comptroller General of the United States says different.

Iraq has gotten slightly better but I just don't really know what we can accomplish over there. I say bring the troops home.