[clue-talk] it's over!

[David Rudder]

Collins Richey wrote:
> I disagree a little bit. There are 2 reasons that Obama is President elect.
>
> 1. George Bush
> 2. George Bush
>
>   
I've been thinking on your post, and I have to disagree.  I thought 
McCain did an okay job of distancing himself from GWBush.  That line in 
the 3rd debate..."if you want to run against George Bush, you should 
have run 4 years ago".  The American electorate doesn't tend to vote 
against someone.  And, if the American electorate wanted anyone but 
Bush, they would have voted in Kerry 4 years ago....the makings of all 
these disasters were obvious then.

Early on, Obama got hammered on Obama.  On his lack of definite 
policies, on his lack of experience, etc.  His poll numbers only really 
took off after the 1st debate, where people heard his policies and got 
to know him personally.  To an extent, you're right that Bush poisoned 
the Republican party....Obama faced a threshold issue.  It wasn't that 
he really had to be *better* than McCain, he just had to be good 
enough.  But, he did have to be good enough, and if he wasn't there was 
no amount of Republican fatigue that would have gotten him into office.
> In any case, if the elected him to fix the economy, they weren't
> really listening to his campaign pledges that will be more likely to
> F#@! the economy.
>
>   
This is a conceit.  The idea that anyone who disagrees with you knows 
nothing about the economy.  As an example, Warren Buffet is an Obama 
supporter.  Are you really saying you know more about the economy than 
Warren Buffet?  Are you saying that Buffet didn't listen to Obama?  That 
he enters into financial agreements without reading the terms?  Or, are 
you implying that Buffet has ulterior motives? 

On the other hand, you've heard McCain's pledges.  More of the same, at 
least on the economy, as Bush's.  And yet, despite all evidence to the 
contrary, you still think those policies will succeed?  Have you not 
seen the stock market recently?  Read a paper?

Here's an example of where I think the Republican ideals on economy 
fail.  McCain claims that lowering taxes will spur innovation*.  But, 
most people in the technical industry will point to the fact that most 
innovation is done in startups, not in established businesses.  Startups 
don't make money, so they don't pay taxes, so lowering their taxes 
doesn't help.  McCain will point to the fact that lower capital gains 
taxes and lower taxes specifically on dividends will encourage 
investment in startups.  And yet, why was there greater and more 
consistent investment under Clinton than under Bush, despite the fact 
that taxes under Clinton were higher than Obama is promising to make 
them? And besides, if you encourage the taking of dividends, you 
discourage investment back into the company, and you halt what little 
innovation comes from public companies. 

Seriously, was the economy under Clinton bad?  Obama's policies are not 
far off from Clintons.  I remember a rolling economy that ended with 
real gains in productivity and per capita wealth, as well as raising the 
living standards of absolutely everyone.  Why is it that Republicans 
can't remember 10 years ago, and yet consistently claim that it's 
Democrats that don't understand the issues?

-Dave

* From his staging site (he's taken down his campaign site)
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American 
innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job 
security -- a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. 
Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will 
fight the Democrats' crippling plans for a tax increase in 2011. Left to 
their devices, Democrats will impose a massive $100 billion tax hike, 
almost $700 per taxpayer every year.