Which of our Primary candidates will be best for the US economy.

[aquarius dawning]

Feel free to qualify your vote. This is, IMO, the key American issue BTW.
I'm voting for Hillary obviously. I'll qualify that by saying that I think her overall plan for America will result in a "healthcare bubble" by taking tax dollars that would otherwise be squandered on Iraq and pumping them into the healthcare industry by providing universal coverage to the poor and, plus, by forcing the uninsured by choice to choose otherwise. This can only lead to increased profits to hospitals who have shown little to no growth for years due to the fact that they have been forced to absorb the costs of treating uninsured persons. It also means companies who support hospitals will show dramatic growth as hospitals respond to theinflux of capital. Say what you will about "the establishment candidate" but I see nothing but good things for everybody here. Furthermore, obama, being the unknown candidate that he is, will result in prolonged market uncertainties which will translate into continued market losses as investors wait along the sidelines to see which way the wind is going to blow.

[aquarius dawning]

1. Looks to me like Obama's people have more votes than solutions.

Which has kind of been the argument all along. If you can't qualify your votes on this issue with at least a little evidence or opinion, what other conclusion can we draw?
typo

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. I don't see any "solutions" from HRC supporters either.

Obama's and Clinton's plans are similar enough that they will probably have similar effects on the economy. Where Obama wins out is in his broad appeal to Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans. The state of the economy is all about confidence. When people have more confidence in their leader, they will have more confidence in the future of their country and in the economy.

[aquarius dawning]

The state of the market is all about certainty. Obama is a great big ? to investors.

Hillary is a known quantity and the economy likes that better than warm tingly feelings in their legs.

[cooolandrew]

2. The one not having to subsidise his own campaign. Barack clearly good forsuisness.

[aquarius dawning]

5. Yeah, I don't think wall street will buy that. I think Obamanomics will look alot like Carternomics

and he'll serve one term for it just like Carter.

[cooolandrew]

3. A healthy economy starts with enthusiasm ask any good salesman.

[aquarius dawning]

8. The same thing can be said about a lie or a con. ask any used car salesman

[Independent-Voter]

6. The president has far less effect than we give them credit for, but they can set the tone

for things. Voters are in a foul mood right now for good reason. Nominating (cause there is no way in hell she'll get elected in the GE) Hillary is just too cynical for many folks. Opportunities are available to everyone, every day, but I truly believe that people are less likely to take a chance to jump on things if the nation as a whole is in a funk and polarized.

Obama, if nothing else, seems like he to instill optimism in people. It'd be foolish to discount that in the grand scheme of things.

[aquarius dawning]

7. Well, you'll notice that Hillary and Obama are not the only choices..

for voters. And I completely disagree about your fiirst premise. The president will have a massive impact on the state of our economy in and after 2008d due to the radical shift in ideology and policy.

[mohc]

9. Obama

For one, I have serious doubts that Clinton can win the general election to begin with. All these great policies do not mean anything if you do not win. Expanding on that same idea, I believe Obama will be much more effective in getting legislation passed, and his being on the top of the ticket will probably lead to bigger gains in the House and Senate. Of course those arguments are purely strategic, and I am sure what you really meant to ask was whose policies in and of themselves are better. Their economic plans are quite similar, but I would say that trade policies would in the end give him a negligible advantage.

[aquarius dawning]

10. What trade policies are you referring to specifically?

"I would say that trade policies would in the end give him a negligible advantage"

[mohc]

11. Their trade policies are fairly similar

Both support strengthening TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) and eliminating tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. They also both put a focus on enforcement, with Clinton specifically stating she would create a new trade enforcement officer position within the office of the USTR, Obama's focus seems to be on getting the WTO to be more active. The difference comes with the attitudes towards NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Obama is pushing for amending NAFTA, while Clinton wants no new NAFTA like agreements (the media has been referring to this as a "timeout on trade"). The difference here is simply a commitment to changes in trade policies that really started to take shape in the 90s. Clinton wants to review the impact, hold off on new agreements, and then make a later determination. Obama wants to beging changing those trade policies right away.

[aquarius dawning]

12. I think the free trade crowd will fight Obama tooth and nail on any immediate and radical changes

to the free trade agreements. Low wage manufacturing jobs are not coming back regardless. China is the new manufacturing king of the world. Trying to fight that by punishing U.S. companies that have accepted it and adapted to it is about as productive as... :banghead:

Americans need to look to new watering holes not affected by overseas emerging markets for job growth, not the old holes that have already dried up. The better leader will lead his flock to the new watering holes, not back to the old ones that aren't there anymore. I think that's Hillary, not Obama.

[aquarius dawning]

13. .

:kick:

[aquarius dawning]

14. .

[LSK]

15. the one taking less Corporate money

[aquarius dawning]

16. Mike Gravel?

seriously, they have both taken corporate money and lots of it. That's OK. Corporations like to make money. When they make money, we make money. When they lose money, we lose money. Punishing corporations is equivalent to punishing Americans. Welcome to investor class economics.

[LSK]

17. you should read some Thom Hartmann

And try TO unbrainwash yourself.

They have been making lots of money in the past few years. We have been making less. Nobody will dispute this fact. Have you read a newspaper in the past 5 years or so?????

[aquarius dawning]

18. That is George Bush's economic insanity at work pure and simple

I wouldn't argue with anybody that his economic "plan" has been anything but a disaster for everyone except the already very wealthy and I'm sure I hate him as much as you do for it. I'm not brainwashed but I do believe that punishing corporations for George Bush's insanity will not help anyone at this point. Job training in non-manufacturing sector areas is part of the solution and I certainly have no problem with repealing those ludicrous tax cuts and using the money to provide that training to the displaced workers affected by the free trade agreements. Pulling out of Iraq will free up billions/trillions of tax dollars for economic revitalization plans as well. I think both candidates are thinking similarly along these lines actually.

[LSK]

19. what about tearing down NAFTA and going back to tarriffs?

The US is still a huge market and foreign companies would have to open factories here while forcing our corporations to move jobs back here.

[aquarius dawning]

20. Probably NO on NAFTA but possibly yes on Tarriffs so long as the revenue is used

to prepare America and Americans for the challenges we face in the 21st century. And while we're beating up on NAFTA, let's remember that outsourcing manufacturing jobs is only 1/2 of the current labor market equation. We don't want to talk about the other half of the equation though but let's face it, people are bought and sold in Washington D.C. like cattle. That's the plantation economy that Hillary mentioned a while back.