The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Milkman

[quote=floorpotato;652452]Good point, FP.

Like I said before, I really like Chuck Hagel. But I am doubtful.

Yes, there is a huge pool of independents and I think both BO and JM will pick their VP choice carefully to attract them, symbolically.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

FayeQuarry

Obama still has his work cut out for himself trying to attract the Hilary dem voters, the blue collar whites, older whites, those with less education, and hispanics.

I tend to think his VP choice would have to focus on this first, rather than the independents. But, he would be a fool to pick Hilary and let her and Bill rum amok in the White house with their all night pizza parties with all their friends, etc..

Kennedy did pick Johnson for VP, in spite of his hatred for the man, but he severely limited his influence. I don't see how Obama could contain the Clinton duo.

So, Obama will have to find someone who can bring in the Hilary voters. And, it will most assuredly NOT be a woman, as any woman choice would be instantly loudly protested by the Hilary supporters as to why he didn't pick her.

This VP process will in a long haul. I don't expect any pick until the Demo convention.

obsidian

huge point, raymond. it'll never happen and it will be hc/bc who will stop the process assuming obama plays his cards well and i think he will.

Butterfly

Can he technically take Bill Clinton as VP ?

FayeQuarry

^Wouldn't that be a hoot! He can pick you if he wants. Point is, the Clinton era is over, and he will put it to bed hopefully. Though he will probably have to give her a cabinet position or something. My guess is he will make a deal to give her Secretary of Health and let her run the health care reform, which is her pet project. She may consider herself too high and mighty for that though.

Milkman

^ and ^^,

Yes, technically, Bill Clinton could be the VP, but it won't be the case.

raycarey

FactCheck.org: Could former President Bill Clinton be vice president?



but of course obama would never choose him....perhaps in a second term he could be sec. of state or ambassador to the UN, but that's it.

Jet Gorgon

^ Nah. Clinton has too much baggage. Leave him loose on the monied lecture circuit.
I still like Bill Richardson, he won't steal Obama's limelight and he has great experience. But, McCain will win anyway, so why bother speculating about BO's veep. Nobody in America wants a government-run economy.

Milkman

We don't know if McCain will win or not at this point. The polling data is too close, and the election is too far away. 5 months is a long time in Presidential election politics.

As for goverment-run economy - it already is.

Entitlements are just over 50% of the budget and this will increase as 78 million baby boomers are now hitting SS as of January 1, 2008.

Jet Gorgon

^ Disagree, MM. America has and is unlikely to ever be a gov-run economy. Of course, businesses are what make the country and their taxes pay for social services. The gov does not generate its own revenue -- its funds come from taxes and borrowings from Treasuries.

Milkman

I see your point and agree on the basics, but we need to realize a large part of the US economy involves taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to large corporations, that hire employees. These companies produce good and sell them back the US government and foreign countries.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrup-Grumman, United Technologies, Boeing, and others.

The Military-Industrial Complex.

The SS and Medicare train crash began in earnest on January 1, 2008.

I have a brief Youtube of former GAO David Walker, here in US domestic. You can find it by searching, if you care.

It's all in the math.

Jet Gorgon

^ True. Govt contracts, especially in the defence industry, do contribute to these businesses' bottom lines, but the contracts are not highly lucrative (compared to private contracts) and are iffy; if the Obama gets in, defence spending will drop.
Thanks, MM. Found the GAO link. A pity it's 2005, when interest rates were higher. I notice that the breakdown of spending thru to 2040 shows interest payments account for the biggest chunk. This should differ today. As medicare takes a bigger chunk, how will Obama pay for the spread to cover almost everyone?

Norton

Interesting comment Jettie. The vast majority seem to be looking to Uncle Sam to fix the failing economy. Lower our fuel prices, bail me out of this nasty mortgage situation, we want more jobs, lower interest rates, lower medical costs, take care of me in my old age, balance the budget but don't raise my taxes.

A tall order for Uncle Sam I would say given "nobody in America wants a government run economy"!

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

sabang

Add to that the fiscal mess left by the Bush administration and, short of drastically cutting government expenditure, I don't see what other choice the government has- regardless of who gets in.

Jet Gorgon

Norty, if Uncle Obama gets in, he will raise taxes to look after all the people in "need" and will PO alot of the doers who already pay tax. Fek, the ne'er do wells will applaud the move coz the lazy feks probably never paid taxes in their life. The Dems will cut all that spending on military stuff (look at it in relative terms, not as high as other costs) to try to offset the deficit. Sure, the baby-boomers will demand their share of care monies. Where will the funds come from? Higher taxes. America as a new Swedish-style economy? I don't think so.
America was built on capitalist ideals. The brilliant developers and innovators will move to Mexico so they can build on their ideas and make money, paying their employees better wages with lower taxes.

FayeQuarry

^Jet good points. We could see America become as Europe has, with the productive business people becoming tax exiles and other nonsense. I hope an Obaman administration wouldn't come to that.

sabang

It's electioneering time, and predictable that Republicans will push the 'Democrats will tax and spend' mantra. The problem is that the last four administrations show this to be an obvious myth in modern history- the Clinton administration did not tax and spend, indeed it scores sound marks economically. The Bush administration tax cuts landed a windfall to the rich, but the increase in social welfare costs negated and sometimes exceeded the benefits for the majority of the population.

Plus in a remarkable turnaround, eight years of Bush turned the worlds largest creditor nation into the worlds largest debtor. I am confident a more moderate Republican administration wouldn't be such a basket case, but I doubt this rather tired economic mantra will score points with the majority of voters today. Not only are they living with the reality of the current economic situation, but they also face the reality of a government that is effectively being kept afloat by the Chinese and Japs, and a currency that has turned from strong under Clinton to a virtual basket case now.

The Democrats will not miss pointing out these obvious facts in their campaign, in fact I'm surprised they are not pushing it harder. Prolly not a good idea to laud Bill though while Hillary was still in the running.

__________________
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Norton

The Wall Street capitalists, poor and middle class all want the government to fix the economy. This is a fact. The American public and businesses have long been bailed out and coddled by the government and are now addicted. To say nobody wants the economy to be run by the government is to deny it has been and will continue to be the status quo. It doesn't matter who gets in, higher taxes are inevitable.

sabang

Like Bear Sterns, Halliburton and so on. This is probably not a major electoral point outside of the financial sector and the economically savvy, but for the first time in history that I am aware, the Bush administration degraded the credit quality of the Federal Reserve.


"Obama noted that investors including Warren Buffet have indicated that a capital gains tax rate of as much as 20 percent ``will probably not have any significant impact in terms of investment.''

At the same time, Obama stressed that the middle class is in desperate need of tax relief because of escalating costs and stagnant wages.

``Over the last decade or so, up to three-quarters of economic growth in the U.S. was captured by the top 1 percent,'' he said. ``What we are trying to do is restore some balance and put some money in the pockets of working families and consumers.'' "

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide=

It seems to me that the Rep's are pushing the interests of the top 1-5% of the wealth tree at the expense of the rest. The Middle class however remains the engine of the economy, both through it's tax revenue, and consumption. They should be getting a fairer deal from their government.

FayeQuarry

^Yes. In that respect, if Obama adopts some of the policies McCain has advocated, he would be on the right track.

I just hope he's not too out of touch with what really drives growth in an economy.