Armstrong: The election is over

When Barack Obama takes office in January (he will, if Sarah Palin's performance last night is any indication), I would humbly ask that he not loosen up lending guidelines like the democrats who came before him, that he not require banks to give out loans to people who cannot pay the bills like the democrats before him. Please, Barack Obama, do not be like the well loved Democrats who came before you; feel free question the power and decisions of Wall Street, but please remember that more government isn't always the best answer and that the Fed can't fix all of our problems.

Sometimes we need to tough it out.

Signed, A Taxpayer.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by sjschlag on October 3, 2008 at 11 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Armstrong: The election is over

When Jim Lehrer asked both candidates how a $700b bailout would effect the plans they have for their administration, neither could give a specific example. In other words, both seemed to think spending $700b would do nothing to their budget plans. Now, if you're a voter basing your vote entirely on the economy like you suggest most people will, are you going to vote for the guy proposing massive new programs and increased government spending with no regard to $700b cut in your available funds?

Despite the low approval ratings of the current president and Senator Obama continuously reminding the country how they differ, he has yet to take a significant margin in any poll. This should be an indication that voters don't have a great deal of confidence in Obama.

This election is far from over.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Mike on October 3, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Armstrong: The election is over

Regarding spending and 700b dollars.

I kind of remember a certain Keynes who would probably say that spending and investment is the way to go...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by oliveira on October 3, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Armstrong: The election is over

You seem to be so sure Obama has the solutions to the economic problems but fail to mention any of them. It was Democratic policies and persistence that pressured institutions like Fredie Mac to lend money to people who did not deserve loans. Obama and his economics advisor both pushed for low income families to get loans for houses. Those low income families are responsible for more than $200 billion of the short fall the failed lending companies have experienced. It's not just Wall street’s fault. It's also the fault of individuals who defaulted on their loans. But, Obama wants to keep sending money into their pockets. He wants to pull money out of our economy by raising taxes on the very people who were holding up the mortgage firms with investment for so long. You are absolutely wrong that this election is over. You are wrong that foreign policy will not be an issue. Worst of all, you didn't just analyze data incorrectly. You had no data. You just spit stuff out that you think instead of presenting a researched argument. Opinions pieces are supposed to be made credible by using sourcing.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Abita on October 5, 2008 at 6:26 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Armstrong: The election is over

Abita,

My article offered no comment on who has the better answers to today's economic problems or who carries the bulk of responsibility for the financial crisis. Most of your comments, therefore, were not directly relevant to my argument. To me, those questions are only relevant in how voters perceive them.

As for your charge that my argument used no data, you are correct. I felt it needed no data. You see, I cannot explain everything in a very short space to my readers, and must assume that they have a minimal baseline of knowledge. In this case, I assumed that they already knew that Democrats have an inherent electoral advantage when economic and related issues are foremost in the minds of voters. I cited no stats for this, just as I cited none to support my assumption that Republicans are more trusted on national security issues.

If you require hard data to see what most others already know, please direct your attention to the following link: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

And then ask yourself why Obama's meteoric rise in the polls in virtually every swing state -- and some previously solid red states -- has coincided so directly with the recent wave of financial turmoil. Put the pieces together.

As a McCain supporter, I certainly hope you are correct that foreign policy will become a major issue. However, barring major world upheaval -- bombs exploding in Manhattan or an Israeli attack on Iran -- I doubt very much that this will occur, and I think my citation of Jim Lehrer's redirection of the first "foreign policy debate" was sufficient to illustrate the point that foreign policy has become a secondary issue.

Thanks to you and others for all the comments.

Paul Armstrong

• Upvote 0
• Posted by PArmstrong on October 5, 2008 at 9:11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Armstrong: The election is over

There may be a correlation between Obama's rise in the polls lately and media coverage of the economic problems, but it's not the only cause of them. It's also a ridiculous assumption that people actually are moving in his direction because of one issue that, lets face it, most people have probably only been aware of in the past two weeks and really more than 50 percent of voting America know nothing about still.
I'm standing my ground though. Give us some data. I'm not trying to attack you. I just think even in a 250-500 word piece, you can give us a nugget. All you had to say was, "Obama has gained X points in swing states since AIG announced its troubles." Then you have a credible argument. Thanks for responding to my comment. I appreciate that and I appreciate you trying to make these issues relevant to readers.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Abita on October 6, 2008 at 10:59 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal