Thread: Cains Midas Touch

Originally Posted by Ironball

It depends.......

If he gets in with a majority in the Senate and House....... we will get to test the GOP conservative theories and abandon the failed Keynesian approach.

You are right however that he would be extremely unpopular with the Left as they see the Obamas push towards European socialism dismantled IMO.

It's not even about ideology at this point.

The president is blamed for the performance of the economy, regardless of how much it actually has to do with presidential decisions. If the economy is still (*)(*)(*)(*)ty a year after Cain's entrance, he'll get blamed for it just the same as Obama has been.

And as much as the Tea Party types talk about smaller government, neither of the big two really want that. They'll throw the Tea Party a few bones, but overall, business will continue as usual.

Same (*)(*)(*)(*), different administration. Wall Street runs the show, and that's just the way it is.

Originally Posted by WatcherOfTheGate

Wow, I thought people were nincompoops for supporting this guy before the alligations, now i have serious concerns for these people who support him more after they find out these emplyees got paid for sexual harrasments alligations.

In this election, I am voting for whomever I believe is best for the economy. I could care less if a candidate has sex with goats in public as long as he is 100% pro free market.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

It's not even about ideology at this point.

The president is blamed for the performance of the economy, regardless of how much it actually has to do with presidential decisions. If the economy is still (*)(*)(*)(*)ty a year after Cain's entrance, he'll get blamed for it just the same as Obama has been.

And as much as the Tea Party types talk about smaller government, neither of the big two really want that. They'll throw the Tea Party a few bones, but overall, business will continue as usual.

Same (*)(*)(*)(*), different administration. Wall Street runs the show, and that's just the way it is.

I'm cynical myself........only not to your extent.
The Obama squandered his first 2 years when he had a majority.
The only way gridlock can be broke is if the next POTUS also has a majority in the Senate and House.

I totally agree, if the economy doesn't improve for the next guy, he will also be eating a (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich.

Cain and Gingrich will be having a Lincoln - Douglas styled sit down debate tonight on CSPAN. I'm thinking these two might be the GOP ticket.

Originally Posted by Pro Deus Et Patria

Of course he couldn't save the economy. I wasn't counting on it because I know he couldn't. No president could have. And of course he's going to say he can. You think he'd say, "We're screwed. Hold tight, everyone."

Yes, a president could have. In fact, Presidents have done it in the past. Of course, they were ideological opposites of Obama, so, your defense is that it is impossible.

Originally Posted by Ironball

I'm cynical myself........only not to your extent.
The Obama squandered his first 2 years when he had a majority.
The only way gridlock can be broke is if the next POTUS also has a majority in the Senate and House.

I totally agree, if the economy doesn't improve for the next guy, he will also be eating a (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich.

Cain and Gingrich will be having a Lincoln - Douglas styled sit down debate tonight on CSPAN. I'm thinking these two might be the GOP ticket.

There are many who argue gridlock is best. When comparing the actions of the government in the late 90s vs. its actions through most of the 00s, I'd have to agree.

When Clinton was president with a Republican Congress, government spending went down. When Bush was president with a Republican Congress, spending went up.

If one party has control of everything, spending tends to increase, not decrease. Gridlock is actually about the only way government shrinks, because it can't get much done.

Originally Posted by Ironball

It depends.......

If he gets in with a majority in the Senate and House....... we will get to test the GOP conservative theories and abandon the failed Keynesian approach.

You are right however that he would be extremely unpopular with the Left as they see the Obamas push towards European socialism dismantled IMO.

You mean all those conservative theories that have already been tested for the last 30 years and failed miserably? No thanks.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

There are many who argue gridlock is best. When comparing the actions of the government in the late 90s vs. its actions through most of the 00s, I'd have to agree.

When Clinton was president with a Republican Congress, government spending went down.

When Bush was president with a Republican Congress, spending went up.

If one party has control of everything, spending tends to increase, not decrease. Gridlock is actually about the only way government shrinks, because it can't get much done.

That's bound to happen when you have a social liberal president and nothing but career politicians in Congress.

Bush was conservative on many issues but not when it comes to the size and scope of government.

He believed in big government.

Add that to a Republican majority in congress who learned their craft from the Democrats and it spells more government not less.

Now if we elect a true conservative like Ron Paul or Newt Grinrich for instance and send more Tea Party conservatives to Congress and real reform is possible.

Originally Posted by Mac-7

That's bound to happen when you have social liberal president and nothing but career politicians in Congress.

Bush was conservative on many issues but not when it comes to the size and scope of government.

He believed in big government.

Add that to a Republican majority in congress who learned their craft from the Democrats and it spells more government not less.

Now if we elect a true conservative like Ron Paul or Newt Grinrich for instance and send more Tea Party conservatives to Congress and real reform is possible.

Ron Paul's not going to win. If Newt wins, I'm sure he'll have many favors to pay back.

It's a lot easier to campaign on small government than it is to actually legislate or administrate as such.

Typically, the only politicians who actually do support smaller government represent small areas or low population states. When someone enters the presidency, it becomes a whole other ballgame.

Consider for a moment how much running for president costs. If I remember correctly, Obama raised something like $750 million in funds in 2008.

While the thought of having a campaign purely funded by individuals rather than special interests is nice, acquiring $750 million that way would be pretty much impossible.

So, inevitably, special interests throw out the big bucks. That means whoever wins has a lot of backscratching to do upon entering office.

That's about the point in time all "small government" goes out the window.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

Ron Paul's not going to win. If Newt wins, I'm sure he'll have many favors to pay back.

It's a lot easier to campaign on small government than it is to actually legislate or administrate as such.

Typically, the only politicians who actually do support smaller government represent small areas or low population states. When someone enters the presidency, it becomes a whole other ballgame.

Consider for a moment how much running for president costs. If I remember correctly, Obama raised something like $750 million in funds in 2008.

While the thought of having a campaign purely funded by individuals rather than special interests is nice, acquiring $750 million that way would be pretty much impossible.

So, inevitably, special interests throw out the big bucks. That means whoever wins has a lot of backscratching to do upon entering office.

That's about the point in time all "small government" goes out the window.

If I were as pessimistic as you are I wouldn't even bother to post on these boards or go to the polls and vote.

Because according to you we are doomed and there's noting we can do about it.

Who says Ron Paul can't win?

People who worship big government?

If we decide to elect Paul or Gingrich they will win and there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing the big government Washington establishment can do about it.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

There are many who argue gridlock is best. When comparing the actions of the government in the late 90s vs. its actions through most of the 00s, I'd have to agree.

When Clinton was president with a Republican Congress, government spending went down. When Bush was president with a Republican Congress, spending went up.

If one party has control of everything, spending tends to increase, not decrease. Gridlock is actually about the only way government shrinks, because it can't get much done.

I've heard those arguments and it is hard to deny that they may have merit.

Clinton may not be the best example as he was lucky enough to be POTUS during the internet boom......the economy was chugging on 12 cylinders and the demands for Big Government were not so strident.

Culturally we have become a bit more 'Grecian' in the past decade or two with large segments of society demanding more from government.

I suppose those who warned us about that "slippery slope" in the past have been validated.