Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Economist Endorses Obama

  1. -1
    trojanma's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,829
    vCash:
    4990
    Loc:
    Magic City
    Thanks / No Thanks
    2013 Dolphins LogoTannehill 17Dolphins Homer

    Economist Endorses Obama

    http://www.economist.com/news/leader...bill-which-one

    I have to admit that i was surprised by that.

    In a nutshell they admitted they werent happy with Obama, but were worried that Romney would pander to the increasingly radical elements of the Republican Party.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,265
    vCash:
    22501
    Thanks / No Thanks
    What a socialist magazine.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    "You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
    "What's that? A criminal?"
    "Worse. A politician."
    Source: Under The Dome
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,590
    vCash:
    2597
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Republican platform speeches have moved so far to the right that even traditional liberal sources have no choice but to prefer Obama. Obama is in many ways to the right of Nixon and Reagan, and those are the kinds of politicians that they would have loved at the time.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,757
    vCash:
    14351
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    They are based in London and would likely have a more left-leaning and world-view perspective. They are probably more concerned with what is best for the EU and Britain rather than what is best for the US. You also have to consider whether they support Keynesian economics, which would wholly support Obama's policies and viewpoint on the economy. I, on the other hand, reject Keynesian economics and think that the government should keep their hands off of the economy - especially during a recession. Nevertheless, this could be a fairly important endorsement for any undecided voters concerned about the economy.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,590
    vCash:
    2597
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    They are based in London and would likely have a more left-leaning and world-view perspective. They are probably more concerned with what is best for the EU and Britain rather than what is best for the US. You also have to consider whether they support Keynesian economics, which would wholly support Obama's policies and viewpoint on the economy. I, on the other hand, reject Keynesian economics and think that the government should keep their hands off of the economy - especially during a recession. Nevertheless, this could be a fairly important endorsement for any undecided voters concerned about the economy.
    They endorsed Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. They are a right-wing newspaper, although still one of the best.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetragrammaton View Post
    Republican platform speeches have moved so far to the right that even traditional liberal sources have no choice but to prefer Obama. Obama is in many ways to the right of Nixon and Reagan, and those are the kinds of politicians that they would have loved at the time.

    What is your explanation for the Iowa paper that always endorses the democrat, endorsing Romney? Or how about the Orlando sentinel which you know is considered the "slantniel" for its left wing leanings, supporting Romney?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    8,052
    vCash:
    2601
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    What is your explanation for the Iowa paper that always endorses the democrat, endorsing Romney? Or how about the Orlando sentinel which you know is considered the "slantniel" for its left wing leanings, supporting Romney?
    If your seriously asking, their entire premise was "which candidate will House Republicans work with". They stated that the House refused to work with Obama even when it was in their best interest the last 4 years, and that if Obama were to be reelected nothing would probably change. I made a post not to long ago about this, but ill go ahead and throw it up here. From the Washington Post(and i fully understand people will declare this dirty liberal media, but heres the article):

    In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!

    That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney.

    Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”
    The Orlando Sentinel also endorsed Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and their reasoning is similar to the Register’s. “The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans,” they write. “It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m_business_pop

    For my take on that situation, giving into blackmail and incentivising politicians that not govern is a dangerous move.
    "Ignorance is not an excuse" were the words Goodell used when describing why those involved in the Saints bounty scandal would not avoid punishment.
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...ons-unanswered
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,757
    vCash:
    14351
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    For my take on that situation, giving into blackmail and incentivising politicians that not govern is a dangerous move.
    Come on man, let's be honest about what has happened the past four years. You mention above that house and senate Republicans have not worked with Obama and the liberals but no one seems to be concerned that Obama and the liberal congressmen have refused to work with the conservatives. Obama had a super majority in the house and senate his first two years and he, Pelosi, and Reid rammed insane spending, Obamacare, and the like down the nation's throat. Then, when America speaks with their ballot and turns over the house, he wants to cry that no one wants to play nice. No one speaks of Obama's or Reid's obstructionism. No one speaks of the absence of a budget for four freaking years! No wonder we are broke and in debt! No one speaks of buying votes with phones or the nearly 1000 executive orders for everything he can't ram through congress. I think that the house republicans stopped us from sliding past the point of no return by at least hand-cuffing Obama. I think that it speaks volumes of how liberal and outside of traditional American values that Obama's adgenda is that he has successfully cast those who stand for traditional American values and conservative ideals as the "radicals" and that no one on the other side of the isle will work with him. No other president in the past 50 years has been stone-walled by congress like Obama has and that is not indicative of partisan politics, it is indicative of how "progressive" and contrary to American values Obama's agenda truly is. Wake up from the media fog and see what is going on...the man is running America into the ground.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2012
    Posts:
    204
    vCash:
    1422
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Republicans also just buried a report stating that their view that lower top end tax rates creating jobs is incorrect.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    8,052
    vCash:
    2601
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Come on man, let's be honest about what has happened the past four years. You mention above that house and senate Republicans have not worked with Obama and the liberals but no one seems to be concerned that Obama and the liberal congressmen have refused to work with the conservatives. Obama had a super majority in the house and senate his first two years and he, Pelosi, and Reid rammed insane spending, Obamacare, and the like down the nation's throat. Then, when America speaks with their ballot and turns over the house, he wants to cry that no one wants to play nice. No one speaks of Obama's or Reid's obstructionism. No one speaks of the absence of a budget for four freaking years! No wonder we are broke and in debt! No one speaks of buying votes with phones or the nearly 1000 executive orders for everything he can't ram through congress. I think that the house republicans stopped us from sliding past the point of no return by at least hand-cuffing Obama. I think that it speaks volumes of how liberal and outside of traditional American values that Obama's adgenda is that he has successfully cast those who stand for traditional American values and conservative ideals as the "radicals" and that no one on the other side of the isle will work with him. No other president in the past 50 years has been stone-walled by congress like Obama has and that is not indicative of partisan politics, it is indicative of how "progressive" and contrary to American values Obama's agenda truly is. Wake up from the media fog and see what is going on...the man is running America into the ground.
    Obama tried to work with Republicans countless times. He was more then willing to bend over, which is why, for example, we do not have a public option in Obamacare despite the fact he "shoved it down their throats". Obama spent most of 2011 working with Boehner...only for Boehner to walk away. Republican candidates ran entire campaigns on the promise of "no compromise!!!", im certain everyone here has seen the video of McConnell declaring its their job to make sure Obama is a one term president. Im not going to go through every single instance or case(this is not the thread for that), but to say Obama and the liberals refused to work with conservatives is simply untrue.

    Im not going to even touch to "traditional American values" thing, thats to laughable. For someone like me, with our history of overcoming discrimination, Republican positions of equal pay for women and gay rights are anti-American values. I often find that those who use that line(Michele Bachmann comes to mind) cant define what "American values" are.

    What is beyond dispute is the numbers. Since Republicans have taken over filibusters have shot through the roof. You cant tell me that "they were just protecting American(!!) values" and Obama had 400 bad ideas....especially since a chunk of that 400 came before he was even elected. I dont even think he was a candidate when those numbers started pilling up.
    But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinio...ion/index.html

    http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm

    If you wanted to make a thread about how Reid and company filibustered under Bush, id probably agree. They did it and the rate was higher then it was previously. But numbers alone show that Republicans, in all to typical fashion these days, reacted vindictively and in a kneejerk way. The numbers just skyrocketed. They got shut down a few times under Bush, Obama spoke mean about them a few times after winning the presidency, some rich people were presented as villians in the publics eyes: so Democrats had to pay...no matter how sensible the bill they are blocking is. And thats wrong. Thats not governing. No matter how mean Obama was to them or how bad the idea he presented them was, it was conservative politicians job to work through it and build compromises. Instead, they shut it down or banked on the Supreme Court to do their jobs for them.

    Much like it says in the link i presented, its sets a dangerous precedence for both parties if this blackmail is rewarded. Its not beyond imagining that the minority will only try and sabotage the majority and refuse to compromise about anything. That is not beyond imagining because weve just lived through it.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Top economist paid for by Obama to push healthcare reform.
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 08:57 AM
  2. The Economist endorses Obama
    By TVs Soupy Sales in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 10:40 PM
  3. McClellan endorses Obama
    By Tetragrammaton in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  4. Buckley Endorses Obama
    By poornate in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 10:15 PM
  5. Hamas endorses Obama
    By SouthJerseyFin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 02:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •