The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

(07-10-2012 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 02:56 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Honest Q. UFC

On balance, has Obama as President been good for this country or bad for it? Please explain why you feel that way.

I'd say he's been lukewarm, took a few decent steps but most of them either lacked true teeth or took too damn long for him to take much credit on, however that isn't really a pertinent question in our system unfortunately. The only real issue one needs to truly concern themselves with is whether or not you think the other guy will be worse/better, and I don't see his economic policies helping us.

Actually I think Obama has been good for the country and I believe if Mittens wins he also will good. Why? I love to see the failure of the both parties. The more their worn out and tired ass solutions to problems fail...the happier I am. Eventually the citizens will understand that regardless of which party you vote for..YOU LOSE. The sooner this happens..the better for America. Maybe then we will come together and actually solve some problems by thinking outside the box and looking forward..instead of backward.

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

Link?

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

If you get rid of the oppressive regulations too.

But, there is so much debt, that growth will still be stifled.

(07-11-2012 01:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

If you get rid of the oppressive regulations too.

But, there is so much debt, that growth will still be stifled.

Why do you hate life? More polution, more dangerous drugs, more unsafe food etc, etc, etc. But as long as you get your money before you die I guess.

(07-11-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

Link?

See...common sense.

So conservatives oppose bad ideas, and that gets spun as blocking progress?

(07-11-2012 04:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So conservatives oppose bad ideas, and that gets spun as blocking progress?

Therein is the progressive's definition of progress.

(07-11-2012 01:26 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

Link?

See...common sense.

It's this sort of debate that makes this board frustrating to read.

(07-11-2012 01:26 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 07:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The quickest way to economic progress is to shrink the federal government. If we could cut the government in half, we'd be between 7% - 8% annual growth.

Link?

See...common sense.

I suppose it depends on what time frame you eliminate the positions of give or take 1 million workers. If you do it quickly, you are looking at a hell of a lot of unemployed people.