n a few weeks we will make a choice that will decide our future.
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
Also, he perfectly predicted the current real estate market meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen in the next couple years
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide the largest morgage bank in the world,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch which are 3 out of the top 5 wall street firms. Also, Fanny and Freddy Mae which hold 50 percent of the home loans in the United States.
The government took them over because they are essentially bankrupt.If they didn't the entire financially system would virtually shut down, the stock market would crash and we would suffer beyond what any of us have seen before.
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand exactly what is broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use complex mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He either didn't care or didn't realize that anything was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime.
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
The chairman of McCains campaign recently said that people don't vote on issues they vote on a personality composite. Which means he is trying to sell you personality instead of results.
He believes people will vote against their own interests.
Let's teach him we are smarter than that .
Hold them accountable NOW! while it will still help.
Elect Obama Biden 2008
How to Lead the World
Keeping the country safe must be Washington's top job—and that takes more than just talk.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological and nuclear—in the hands of authoritarian regimes and theocratic terrorists constitute the gravest near-term threat the United States could face. Eliminating this threat—not simply managing it—must be the top priority for the next president and his or her secretary of State. This is why the 2008 election is so consequential for national security—despite the efforts of many candidates to ignore the issue, or to concentrate on President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq.
The danger posed by WMD is not directed at America's military. These are terrorist weapons that could threaten or attack innocent civilians in the United States or its allies. It does little good to talk of cold-war-style deterrence when dealing with people who prize the next life more than this one, or who calculate costs and benefits more like Hitler in his bunker than Soviet-era apparatchiks.
Even though we no longer face the kind of existential threat that characterized the cold war, today's WMD danger is no more bearable. Nor would retaliation after mass murder be a satisfactory response. The current threat must be stopped while still in its early stages. Eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime was a major strategic victory in this regard, despite the conflict in Iraq that followed. So, too, was Libya's decision to renounce its nuclear-weapons program after it was discovered to be participating in the AQ Khan smuggling network.
While few will take issue with the goal of rolling back WMD proliferation, the means remain vexing. There are especially big differences between the U.S. and European approaches. But such differences aren't new or insurmountable. The United States and its European friends argued about similar questions for at least 200 years, since Washington chose to use force against the Barbary pirates—the terrorists of their day—rather than trying to buy them off, as Europe favored. The Europeans eventually came around then; it's hoped they will today as well.
Negotiating from a real position of strength should remain part of the U.S. strategy; the Libyan case highlights how effective talks can be. But negotiations for their own sake—as typified by Europe's failed effort to chitchat Iran out of its nuclear-weapons program—are naive and dangerous. So is the Bush administration's "trust but don't verify" approach to North Korea. Talks will work only if regime change and the direct use of military force remain highly visible options.
Perhaps the most important battle to be fought is at home, against those who believe rogue states can be contained by diplomatic massaging and terrorists defeated through aggressive litigation. Weapons of mass destruction are not simply blips in a smooth diplomatic terrain, but true tectonic disturbances—just as terrorists are not like especially bad bank robbers, but are potential WMD delivery systems masquerading as civilians.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss