Which Presidential candidate is better for the economy if elected?

[Free Thinker]

Which Presidential candidate is better for the economy if elected?

bachman. she has jezus on her side.

 

[Humpy]

Quote from jprad:

E) None of the above.

Any candidate who is a member of either national party cannot govern effectively. Their hands are tied by those who funded their campaign.

The guy with the biggest slush fund has won the election the last umpteen times.
With what policies you may well ask ?
With those sort of bribes who the hell cares.
Then you got their dummy to put up with, for the next 4 years ! What a crummy system. If it gets half as bad as for Greece then watch out for mega trouble !

 

[nutmeg]

It really doesn't matter who is president, we could elect Joe the Plumber, what we really need is a plan.

I'm telling you, for a President that spends time talking about a Sputnik momemt he cancels the space program. WTF?

 

[rew]

Quote from jprad:

E) None of the above.

Any candidate who is a member of either national party cannot govern effectively. Their hands are tied by those who funded their campaign.

The people funding Ron Paul's campaign are mostly ordinary people who want their country back. The guys with big money who want a politician who will comply with their interests will fund any politician but Ron Paul.

 

[JamesL]

Quote from nutmeg:

It really doesn't matter who is president, we could elect Joe the Plumber, what we really need is a plan.

I'm telling you, for a President that spends time talking about a Sputnik momemt he cancels the space program. WTF?

Space shuttle program phaseout was begun under Bush with his "Vision For Space Exploration":

http://history.nasa.gov/sep.htm

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from achilles28:

Ron Paul.

0% income tax.
0% corporate tax.
Hard currency.
No wars.
Balanced budget.
Gut Federal Workforce.
Gut Federal Regulations.

+1

In the field listed, I guess I'd have to choose Cain. Some of his recent comments (including his admiration for Gingrich) suggest he's much more of an status quo Republican than I hoped, though.

 

[zdreg]

Roark

Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 658



09-30-11 09:09 AM

Quote from zdreg:

I am glad you recognize bush's contribution to the current mess. when ask why he allowed paulson to go ahead with bailouts bush said he gave up his free market principles to save the system.
obama took the ball and ran with it.
God help America to wake up.


So your're the idiot that voted for Obama?

your idiotic response shows that you can't read properly. your handle(roark) can't hide your level of literacy.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from chaosclarity:

Vote in the poll goddamit!

You'll have to define "better" more specifically before I can cast a vote. More jobs? Lower deficits? What, exactly?

And it might be useful to add a "it won't make any real difference" choice.

 

[silver914]

Quote from Random.Capital:

And it might be useful to add a "it won't make any real difference" choice.

+1

If I were to start voting again, it would be for Obama. Yes, Paul has the right idea(s), but they will never be implemented by anyone, even Jesus Christ himself. No, I would vote for the asshole that will bring it all to a conclusion, however ruinous the quickest. With Obama in the hot seat for another four years people just might get angry enough to do something...revolt. Anything else is just prolonging the pain.

 

[Humpy]

I know it's a bit of a liberty from a foreigner but US guys think carefully this time please. You really haven't done too well so far - for instance :-

Obama - vastly overspent. Sounds good but has little substance
G.W.Bush - moronic warmonger. Spent America for Israel
Clinton - womaniser and should not have revoked controls on bankers
Bush - not too bad
Reagen - he was sensible enough to hire in good help
Carter - clueless backwoodsboy
Nixon - lying crook
Johnson - saddled with a disastrous war
Kennedy - vastly overated. Lost Cuba and enterred Vietnam war
Eisenhower - steady
Truman - failed to use nuclear advantage, lost Arab sympathy

etc.