For once I am taking the "middle view" and taking a guess that the reason neither POTUS wannabe is serious about the economy is really very simple; They are both smart enough to know that it took many, many, many, years to screw up the economy to point it is now. In the interest of fair play, President Bush is not totally at fault, the war in Iraq was just the straw that bent the camel's back. Both McCain and Obama know that they will not be able to fix our economy in four or even 8 years. They both know that all they will be able to do is start us in the right direction and hope the next POTUS after them will continue the improvement (should any happen that is). Also in taking the "middle view" on both politicians, both will say or do anything they think we want to hear to get our votes so don't expect what they promise to actually happen regardless of who the next POTUS is.

Economies make Presidents-- not the other way around.

Just trying to clarify the "middle view"....

Do you actually think that the 40% increase in the national debt had nothing at all to do with Bush's policies?

Do you also think that borrowing that much money did not have an impact on the value of the dollar?

Bush's policies have harmed the economy, there's no doubt about that. In fairness, however, there are also some factors that occurred in the current slowdown that were beyond his control or the control of any president.

A president can affect things on the margins to soften the blow, but for some economic indicators, the only thing that can be done is to wait it out.

That's what I would call the "middleview".

I think that policies, in this case, were a bit more than just on the margins.

I think the current increase in oil prices has more to do with the value of the dollar than it does an increase in demand.

Greatbear452: Spoken like someone with a true "middle view." As for the so called "middleview" he is a deceptecon. His views are about as far to the left from the middle as they can get. He is not looking for someone who can help us. He does not care as long as it is a "change" and not a dreaded Republican. Our friend "middleview" is not. Don't blame him too much though, I suspect he is suffering from some sort of trauma brought on by his time in the military. Perhaps something similar to the "Stockholm Syndrome". Personally I take a true middle view and only want the best for our country. I do not play politics and couldn't care less if our next POTUS is Democrat or Republican. I also do not care if our next POTUS is White or Black or something in between. I feel that "middleview" should by all means vote for the candidate of his choice. What he should not do is hate the opposition because they are a member of the Republican Party. I do not hate Mr. Obama, I simply do not know him well enough to trust him. It is really as simple as that.

Americans find great comfort in denying possible problems until they become unavoidable, then inflating them to be so big as to be impossible to deal with, justifying continued inaction. This applies to economy (30 years of bubbles), scientific debate (global warming) as much as to the federal budget.

It's easy to fix social security, just remove the cap. Right now it is a ridiculously regressive tax, completely out of sorts with the rest of the tax code. Just make it a flat tax or make it as progressive as the income tax.

Breaking the social contract that social security implies is not a trivial matter. Sure, we could go back to letting people lose their livelihoods through a single stroke of bad luck (few months unemployed? lose house and savings. get sick living on the streets? tough noogies - you die), and to let the elderly beg in the streets (or starve under the bridges -wouldn't want to have to see them), but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to most Americans. As it is, America's poverty rate is already humiliatingly far over that of modern nations everywhere, and its influence on children disproportionately large.

While I agree that the federal budget is an aweful mess, and in my view should be the top priority of the next administration (in addition to addressing the trade balance and (lack of) household savings, the other two big deficits of the US economy), I don't think it's time to go back to the nineteenth century yet.

I know McCain well enough not to trust him. I am not suffering from any sort of syndrome any more than you are and find it interesting that you claim to have a "middle view" while also saying that someone who disagrees with you does not have the best interests of the country at heart. I do not hate people because they are republicans. I was one for 30 years. I hate Bush and Cheney for the disaster that they and their administration of cronies has created.

Find any post of mine that you would classify as "far left", not just anti-bush.

By the way.....look up the meaning of Stockholm syndrome. If I were suffering from it, I'd be pro-Bush.

I know what you mean, Middleview. I'm a moderate, but because I'm disgusted by the criminality of the Bush administration, I get lumped in with even the most extreme liberals.

Of course, to many posters here, anyone to the left of Ann Coulter is a Marxist.

I don't pay such nonsense any mind. I just go with my conscience. I'm supporting Obama this election because he's the only candidate left who will not continue Bush's disastrous economic and foreign policies. Also, in one way it does matter to me that the next president is a dem and not a rep. Since impeachment is "off the table" thanks to our spineless Congressional "leadership", the only real punishment left to hand to Bush is the denial of a legacy. To me, that alone is enough reason not to vote for McCain.

agreed. I think the only way we'll get back to a healthy two party system is if the republicans are handed a defeat of biblical proportions. Then they may dump people like Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.....

Read "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative" and see if you recognize actions that are unique to the repubs or if you see dems doing the same.

We need a 3 party system!

I spent a lot of money and time on Perot's campaign in 92. Now I'll work from within the Dem party to try to make things better.

Schooloflife:

We need a 3 party system!

I agree. There's absolutely nothing in our constitution that mandates a two party system. All we need for a a third party is for one to get enough popularity to compete.

The Reform Party had a decent shot, but for much of its history it was basicly a cult of personality for Perot. Then Pat Buchanen took it over and turned it into the insane xenophobic anti-immigration party.

I knew it was dead once people who hoping Perot would bring sanity back to it.

Three parties would be a good start, but I think it will take serious electoral reform to wrest control of the system from the one-and-a-half party that's running it.

I believe proportional representation and mandatory voting (or at the very least a national holiday on voting day) would be required for creating a real multi-party democracy in the US.

I know McCain well enough not to trust him. I am not suffering from any sort of syndrome any more than you are and find it interesting that you claim to have a "middle view" while also saying that someone who disagrees with you does not have the best interests of the country

Middleview: If you honestly believe what you have said above then you are what you accuse me of. I also know McCain, but unlike you I have known him long enough and well enough to know that compared to your beloved Obama he is a saint, and McCain is no saint. I know McCain well enough that I do not question his loyalty to this country. I know McCain well enough to know that he nearly gave his live in military service to this country. I know McCain well enough to know that he has the experience both political and military to lead this country.

Obama on the other hand I do not know. I confess that prior to this year I had never heard his name before. A small amount of background investigation on him makes me (1) Question his loyalty (I don't care how tired people like you are of hearing about his father. bottom line "blood is thicker than water"). (2) Question his political experience. (3) Know for a fact that he does not have a clue why the military needs to operate the way it does nor know how to make improvements to make it more efficient. (3) Know that his "reallocation of funds fix is nothing more than robing from Peter to pay Paul, it didn't work in the past and it won't work now. (4) Know that his "cut and run, wait and see" policy to end the war in Iraq looks great on paper and is just what some people want to hear. If it works great, my hats off to him. If it doesn't work then what? The terrorists didn't leave us alone when under other past presidents when we did not retaliate against their attacks. What makes any sane person believe that once we run away from Iraq they will suddenly become our friends or at least leave us in peace? The only reason that I could think of that they might leave us alone is if they were already in control of the United States from within and the bottom line is I do not trust Obama!! (5) Do you really think that if Obama becomes POTUS and actually effects his raise in personal income taxes and increases the capitol gains taxes on large corporations, that we will somehow have more money to spend? The big corporations will simply move to other more economically favorable countries and our unemployment rate will raise. What sort of impact do you believe this will have on the economy? (6) Lets talk about wasteful spending. It is said that McCain's ideas will only amount to about a .78% reduction. Obama's ideas; I've yet to hear them. What I do hear is the same old Democratic rhetoric of need more money, "raise taxes." To be fair IF it works, ending the war in Iraq will indeed ease our financial burden. If he is so certain that will work, why talk about reallocation and raising taxes? My guess is that he either has no intention of ending the war or knows that there is a good probability it won't work and we will have to go back and it will cost us dearly to just gain back what we already have and will have lost due to his failed policy. Obama is gambling with our lives, both military (if we have to go back) and civilian (if we are attacked again) and he is betting our farm economically. Call me a coward if you wish, but I feel that Obama is trying to pull a con on us by telling us what we want to hear in order to get our vote. Hell all he really has to say to some people is I'll end the war and I'll fix the economy and he's not a Republican and they are on the Obama bandwagon. Like lambs to the slaughter....What a shame!

If you know McCain so well, then you know that he is for ending the war in Iraq as well. He unlike Obama has the military experience to know that you don't just cut and run. You need to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan and leave them with the ability to fend for themselves. Our troops are the only thing that is keeping the middle east as stable as it is. While you might not thinks this is saying much consider this: A middle east at war with Iran invading Iraq first then going to war with Turkey and Saudi Arabia (who are both our allies) will have a dramatic effect on middle east stability and our economy via the precious oil supply. Iran knows this and is salivating at the thought of a weak POTUS like Obama so we won't be in their way. By the way the Stockholm Syndrome is basically where the hostage sides with the captor. In this case it is people like you who want a "Change" so bad that you don't care what the change is, bad or good. You are the hostage and Obama is the holding your thoughts and apparently vote hostage in exchange for his "CHANGE."