DescentBB

article wrote:Mitch Daniels’s overnight decision against a presidential bid will immediately raise the volume on the low-hum grumbling among Republican insiders that they’re gearing up to face President Obama with the weakest primary field in recent memory.

Consider the list of would-be candidates who’ve passed on a campaign in the last four months: Mike Pence, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump and now Daniels.

Add Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Rick Perry – Republicans with star power who’ve said flatly they won’t run – and it translates into a GOP establishment deeply worried that the flawed options they’re left with won’t be any match for an incumbent president who seemingly won’t face a primary but is likely to shatter campaign fundraising records.

MITT ROMNEY - Who complains that Obamacare, (which is a requirement for all states) is bad for the nation, but somehow his Romneycare (which is a requirement for HIS state) is ok because we need more sense like that.

So, that leaves Sarah Palin as the only serious contender because the U.S. is full of the same republicans who believe that she's always been qualified and does exemplify family values despite what's going on with Bristol and may choose Newt or Mitt as a running mate.

woodchip wrote:Cain has no political experience but has quite possibly better oratory skills than Obama. Right now is way too early to say who I would like until I hear them in debates. It will be a interesting election cycle this time around. The real race will be for the senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

While I still like Sarah Palin, I'd still have to see how she'd hold up on the campaign trail. Michelle Bachman is another female I'd keep a eye on if she decides to run. A real female dark horse would be Condolezza Rice. If she decides to run I think she may very well be the strongest best credentialed candidate the republicans could field.

Heretic wrote:Has any one heard of Herman Cain?

woodchip wrote:Nice try slick. I predict the economy double dips and gas prices stay high. Obama care starts throwing grannie to the death panels and everyone goes into shock when they start have to buy $50.00 light bulbs. Obama would be hammered and beat by even the likes of Joe the Plumber.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:LED Light Bulbs

item description wrote:Saves $97 in energy costs
Designed to last up to 15 years*. Offers superior life and low energy consumption.
Replaces a 50 watt halogen PAR30 bulb, with same size and shape, and rugged design. Ideal for recessed and track lighting.
Instant on. Both mercury and lead free construction.
Emits virtually no heat and will not fade colors

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I also believe the economy will double-dip.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.

Top Gun wrote:What do you want on your tombstone?

null0010 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.

I don't think that's enough of a reason to believe that the economy will suddenly fall through the floor.

woodchip wrote:Nice try slick. I predict the economy double dips and gas prices stay high. Obama care starts throwing grannie to the death panels and everyone goes into shock when they start have to buy $50.00 light bulbs. Obama would be hammered and beat by even the likes of Joe the Plumber.

Heretic wrote:

Top Gun wrote:What do you want on your tombstone?

Sausage and Pepperoni

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.

I don't think that's enough of a reason to believe that the economy will suddenly fall through the floor.

Why do you think it WON'T double dip?

Spidey wrote:I personally think there is a possibility of a double dip if the housing market fails to recover soon. And after the abysmal attempt by the current administration to deal with the problem, I don’t hold much hope. We seem to be in the perfect storm, of economic disaster. (pun intended, as we are in the eye)

But, that’s only the pessimistic side of me talking.

flip wrote:Honestly, Clinton was a good president who got his dick sucked in the oval office. Honestly who could resist that? Seems I remember that there was a surplus projected when Clinton left office, which was immediately destroyed by the next administration. ...

article wrote:Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

Remember the Surplus?
The world was a very different place, economically speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January 2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that the Internet would transform everything. Productivity gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so far as to predict an end to the business cycle. Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was fully paid off.

This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed through were often unfair to developing countries. We should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened regulation of the securities markets, and taken additional steps to promote energy conservation. We fell short because of politics and lack of money—and also, frankly, because special interests sometimes shaped the agenda more than they should have. But these boom years were the first time since Jimmy Carter that the deficit was under control. And they were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a benchmark worth celebrating.

By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.

flip wrote:Well, see if your going into a world economy and world government, then a "relentless effort to reduce the deficit" is exactly where you want to be when the transition happens. Not trillions of dollars in debt which will ensure that we will be slaves to the lender. Education, infrastructure and anything else should have come second.

Spidey wrote:Slick, I only used the housing market as my example…I also used the term “perfect storm” because there are also many other factors. Many projections over the last year of so have been based on the market reaching a bottom but the housing market is still going down, and foreclosures are still out of control.

The credit crisis (banks are still not lending)

Personal credit over maxed

Inept/inactive government

Anemic job market

National dept/deficit

Sure the stock market has recovered…but that is just fake money…not real wealth, as anybody who lost a bundle overnight can attest to.

“I see no reason that the mechanics aren't in place to continue recovery at a slow, steady pace.”

Elaborate please…