Posted on 03/20/2008 8:58:22 PM PDT by Starman417
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Senator Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the fragile economy on “careless and incompetent execution” of the Iraq war, imploring voters in this swing state to consider the trickle-down economic consequences of the war as they choose a successor to President Bush.
“When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war,” Mr. Obama said to an audience at the University of Charleston. “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”
One day after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned here, Mr. Obama arrived in West Virginia for his first trip before the primary on May 13. The state is also likely to be a general election battleground, and Mr. Obama delivered a critique of Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
“No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s an outcome America can’t afford. Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Obama needs Econ 101.
Dems restrict refining, block off domestic oil production, tax the hell out of oil and ... its the war’s fault?
Can’t wait for 8 years of Obama!
I eagerly await Obama to point to his vigorous efforts in the Senate to help make the United States self sufficient in energy. Or, if he has not made any such efforts, I eagerly await his major policy speech outlining his plans to do so. So c’mon Obama, put your money where your mouth is.
I saw this article, and the one below it about a new video -Cult of Personality. I truly thought they both were about oSama with his new video out. Pretty scary when you get the same types of articles from a leader presidential nominee and a leading terrorist.
And another thing. In the three years Obama has been in the Senate he MUST have been cognizant of the steady rise in the price of oil. C’mon big mouth Nobama, tell us what you would have, could have, or should have done differently.
I’ve got 2 1/2 weeks before Obamative Action reprises the Vietnam era lie:
Poor Blacks who are forced into the military because white America won’t hire them are carrying the brunt of the dangerous duty in this war...I mean Bush’s “unpopular” war.
Somehow I don't think that military spending is the problem. Nor is not enough taxes.
This guy knows less about how the economy operates than Sean Penn.
I have a question; has Obama ever heard of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and what it's about? This party of Democrats is a weird conglomeration of Euro style socialists and everyone who sees themselves as a minority and somehow slighted. It's the party of the perpetual underdog, even when they had the Presidency and Congress they were still giving diatribes about the “vast right wing conspiracy.”
Look at what this party panders to! Look at its leaders! Look at what they say and represent! Most people who vote Democrat see some personal benefit in doing so. They are older and hear grand stories of rivers of gold that will flow into Social Security. They pay high medical bills and hear about “free” healthcare. They are Hispanic and want those who they sympathize with to all be able to come into the country. They are black, and near automatically born with a sense of entitlement that the state should carry them through life for past injustices most humans endure at some point, being picked on for some reason. It's the party that has magical answers to made up problems, like global warming, something now rapidly deflating in credibility and support; I bet this issue will now fade from the Democratic center stage too. It’s the party for feminists, gay, lesbian, and trans-gender, and pornographers; this party is loved by the MSM and Hollywood, their support should speak volumes.
The people that vote for this party essentially reason like this: “I’m old, I need Social Security and Medicare and for me this is so important that ANYTHING else I will overlook.” Are older people predominantly those hugging trees? Are older people ultra liberal and against the war? Do older people think highly of gay marriage? Yet the Democrats who more or less go against most things that older and more conservative minded demographic would back gets their vote. It’s simple, promise people lots of government cheese, and that’s what the Democrats do, with Obama leading the way. How many billions has he promised so far? 850.35 Billion, so far. No big deal for him though, because he’ll raise the money by ending the war. LOL LOL LOL
What is true though, is that you have American political figures rooting though facts, even trying to paint failure where none exists, prophesying doom and gloom, in part creating self fulfilling prophesies by screaming fire in the theater........ And these are the people who want us to elect them to power! These are the people talking about no negative campaigning and a “positive message.” LOL
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Actually probably as much as hugo chavez, which should make an intersting 8 years.
HOpe the idms are happy.
Using 101 economics, what is the answer to his assertion? I’m no economist but we seem to be in a wartime economy are we not? But if we are not in a wartime economy are you saying the government has the financial resources as to not have an affect on the overall economy? Would you explain this. If you cannot anyone reading this can clear this up for me.
Thanks in advance.
I’m pretty sure if anyone does some deep investigation they may find Soros and his buds as the answer to why gas prices are so high.
Obama is about as smart concerning economics as he national defense. In short, he knows next to nothing about either. Coupled with a tremendous ignorance about what most Americans are really like i.e. "typical white person" and you have the Candidate Of Disaster.
This is not a wartime economy. Check out the difference in military GDP spending between now and WW2.
Obama is being disingenuous in that the extra expense of the war is a fairly small (though not insignificant) contributor to the overall government accounting problem.
If I were a politician, and I could do one thing and one thing only by fiat, and my mission was to fix our current economic problems, I would not even need to think about it, I would immediately and unhesitatingly repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, a trillion-dollar per year drag on the economy (which, as we see with the current liquidity crisis, has done absolutely nothing to prevent the problems it was imposed to prevent).
Now I’m lost. Sarbanes-Oxley is public oversight. A repeal of public oversight impacts the trillions we are spending? How? I’m still not understanding how you are connecting the dots that the taxpayers have these enormous sums of money to spend on this war.
Secondly, WWII military spending would obviously not be as high since the US wasn’t footing all of the war. If we were, please correct me.
Because we are financing everything from bullets to rebuilding that economy, how can you say taxpayers won’t feel this in some significant way?
http://www.afji.com/2007/03/2545232
“... The 2008 defense budget equals about 4.4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product,...”
“... past defense spending: During World War II, it was 38 percent of GDP; during Korea, 14 percent; Vietnam, 9.5 percent; during the Reagan buildup, 6.2 percent.”
Now don’t get me wrong; we’re running out of money, and fast. We won’t be able to afford the military we have now, moving into the future - back in WW2 we didn’t have the vast nanny state apparatus and tremendous national debt to drain the treasury.
Why do I pick SOX? A number of reasons. First, the current crisis proves that it is worthless - post SOX, exactly what SOX was supposed to prevent is happening, and on an order of magnitude that dwarfs the inspiration for the law (Enron). It costs companies a trillion dollars a year - that money is reflected in the prices we pay for goods and services. It also drives business out of the country and deters others from setting up shop here. I can’t think of any other move that, with the mere repeal of a bad law, could put that amount of money back into the economy for productive purposes. There are many other things that should be done but this has a cost/benefit heads and shoulders above anything else.
“Now don’t get me wrong; we’re running out of money, and fast. We won’t be able to afford the military we have now, moving into the future -”
So we are back to square one and it’s like Obama said in the piece you posted. We are feeling the effects of this military drain on the economy and like you said, we cannot continue this level of military spending because it is fast draining our domestic resources. Weather we want to accept it or not, this is a wartime economy. Jobs going over seas. Housing mess. Gas prices are killing us. All due to how we are dumping money into this war.
Like I said, I’m no economist but I do hold two masters degrees in science and as best as can be determined, we cannot afford this.
But thanks for the discussion. I’m Audi
I do not disagree that we cannot afford our foreign policy... nor our domestic policies. You don’t need to be an economist to figure it out, all you need to be is mathematically literate.
First its econ 101, then SOX, now it’s a math problem.
Hey, I’m good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.