The Big Cat Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Just wondering here: For all of those concerned about Obama's decision making experience, economic concerns, and "wealth distribution" - how do you view the Obama campaign as a model for his habits of wealth/resource allocation and how do you think his long term strategy as well as his unwavering commitment to said strategy reflects on his abilities as a decision maker and planner? He invested in the ground game/trenches (something all us Bills fans can appreciate) and stuck to his message. He showed discipline and disciplined planning. I think we can all agree with that? You can point to the huge amounts of money he had, but he spent that money wisely. His 50 state plan turned 9 red states blue and significantly narrowed the gap in many others. Pretty major accomplishments for a first-time African American elect, all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Hmmm...Probably has more to with his campaign advisors than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 A presidential campaign and a 14 trillion dollar GDP economy are two entirely different things. Obama did an outstanding job managing the former. No central authority, however, can nor should be managing the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I think the founding fathers would be appalled to see that only the rich can run for political office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Never mind the hatred toward W. That had NOTHING to do with last night's events. Dude, a mannequin could have run on the Democratic ticket and won (oh, wait, one did...). That's how badly the republicans shot themselves in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 He probably feels that you can do anything with enough money. After all that's how he won the election. Money, whether legally obtained or not. He flooded the airwaves, bought TV and radio stations off. Figures he can solve all our problems by tax, tax, tax, and then buying the US out of any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I think the founding fathers would be appalled to see that only the rich can run for political office. Considering all the founding fathers were rich and in many states only allowed a vote to debt free property owners, we can make a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Just wondering here: For all of those concerned about Obama's decision making experience, economic concerns, and "wealth distribution" - how do you view the Obama campaign as a model for his habits of wealth/resource allocation and how do you think his long term strategy as well as his unwavering commitment to said strategy reflects on his abilities as a decision maker and planner? He invested in the ground game/trenches (something all us Bills fans can appreciate) and stuck to his message. He showed discipline and disciplined planning. I think we can all agree with that? You can point to the huge amounts of money he had, but he spent that money wisely. His 50 state plan turned 9 red states blue and significantly narrowed the gap in many others. Pretty major accomplishments for a first-time African American elect, all things considered. I actually think he underpreformed, given the amount of money he had. He would have done just as well had he merely outraised and outspent McCain only 2:1. He was efficient when it was close, but when he had huge cash advantages, it never seemed to be used to full effect. He should never have allowed Clinton to hang in there past Texas when she was broke and he was rolling in money - instead she closed the race and won the remainder of the season. And the flurry of commercials in red states over the last two days was more "use it or lose it" than a real part of his electoral strategy. He would have won just as sweeping a victory had he returned the $50 million and stopped advertising a week ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So much of that money he raised came from illegal overseas money obtained by untraceable gift cards and credit card fraud. His campaign took off the safeguards that require an address and ID verification. Ask people who studied the economics of the Great Depression. The thing that prolonged it to the entire 1930s was raising taxes. All those government (NRA, WPA, CCC, etc) programs did nothing to shorten it. The taxing Obama wants to do is will likely push this recession into a depresion. Hey, but i will get my car and rent paid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The thing about economics and the celebrations last night...I saw NOTHING but well to do Chicagoans celebrating last night. I didnt see any poor, any unwashed masses, ANYONE who would truly BENEFIT from this event. As if these people's lives have been so bad? Those two attractive bruneete women they kept showing had teeth so white, they should be in toothpaste commercials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I think the founding fathers would be appalled to see that only the rich can run for political office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Considering all the founding fathers were rich and in many states only allowed a vote to debt free property owners, we can make a guess. Care to guess why? They didn't want big money lobbyists making the decisions, or people who vote with their pocketbooks on government programs. Sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So much of that money he raised came from illegal overseas money obtained by untraceable gift cards and credit card fraud. His campaign took off the safeguards that require an address and ID verification. Ask people who studied the economics of the Great Depression. The thing that prolonged it to the entire 1930s was raising taxes. All those government (NRA, WPA, CCC, etc) programs did nothing to shorten it. The taxing Obama wants to do is will likely push this recession into a depresion. Hey, but i will get my car and rent paid! To re-enforce your point compare the depression of 1920 to 1929. Ask yourself what was the difference? For those that don't know the answer it was higher taxes, regulation, and inflation. That's why his idea won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The thing about economics and the celebrations last night...I saw NOTHING but well to do Chicagoans celebrating last night. I didnt see any poor, any unwashed masses, ANYONE who would truly BENEFIT from this event. As if these people's lives have been so bad? Those two attractive bruneete women they kept showing had teeth so white, they should be in toothpaste commercials. Well, what's it going to be with you people? All we've heard for weeks is that the people voting for Obama were welfare queens, commies, terrorists and lazy people looking for a hand-out. Now you're stating (wrongly, as there were spontaneous, jubillant crowds from all walks of life in almost every city displayed on our TV screens last night) that there were only the well-to-do celebrating, or in your words the people who wouldn't be directly benefitting from Obama's economic policies (another non-fact). Am I to take it from your post that a very diverse cross-section of America voted proudly for this man and celebrated his election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 The thing about economics and the celebrations last night...I saw NOTHING but well to do Chicagoans celebrating last night. I didnt see any poor, any unwashed masses, ANYONE who would truly BENEFIT from this event. As if these people's lives have been so bad? Those two attractive bruneete women they kept showing had teeth so white, they should be in toothpaste commercials. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, that wasn't the case. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Just wondering here: For all of those concerned about Obama's decision making experience, economic concerns, and "wealth distribution" - how do you view the Obama campaign as a model for his habits of wealth/resource allocation and how do you think his long term strategy as well as his unwavering commitment to said strategy reflects on his abilities as a decision maker and planner? He invested in the ground game/trenches (something all us Bills fans can appreciate) and stuck to his message. He showed discipline and disciplined planning. I think we can all agree with that? You can point to the huge amounts of money he had, but he spent that money wisely. His 50 state plan turned 9 red states blue and significantly narrowed the gap in many others. Pretty major accomplishments for a first-time African American elect, all things considered. The fact remains is that we are all going to have to pay for the $700B++++ bailout of Wall St. I fully expect to pay some but I also expect those who make significantly more (seven figures) to kick in a little extra. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The fact remains is that we are all going to have to pay for the $700B++++ bailout of Wall St. I fully expect to pay some but I also expect those who make significantly more (seven figures) to kick in a little extra. PTR We? Or just the tax payers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 We? Or just the tax payers? You're not a tax payer? I had no idea you were so wealthy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts