If Republicans win the 08 election will it be 4 more years of record deficits and failed foreign policy?

Question

I know it's a long shot but IF they somehow managed to steal the 08 election.

Answer 1

I'm not Republican, but I can't sit there and assume that if they win it's going to be Armageddon. There have been a few Republicans who were good leaders...sorry, though, not recently. I think both parties have deviated from their original path...extremely. I think there are some good leaders out there, but the fact is, they are going to win the candidacy if they only have a potential to win the Presidency (either party). Sad, but true.

Answer 2

Steal the election? If the republicans win because people vote them in it will be a step up from the current leadership in congress, Nancy Pelopsi was a ok minority leader but a horrible majority leader, its been years since the Democrats have actually stood together on a real platform, and its been almost every year that the Republicans have, if you look the U.S. has a record low unenployment rate and a successful foreign policy of defending the U.S. instead of letting our enemies strengthen. Go learn facts not rhetoric, and stop spewing hate and listening to steriotyping then maybe you'll learn something

Answer 3

You had better hope that the republicans win the white house.. because if one of those morons such as Hillary or Obama get in..you can look forward to a setback in time to the Carter era.. record inflation and record high intrest rates and lots of people without jobs.. During the carter administration the government took money from military spare parts and put it into entitlement programs. The clinton administration was nearly as bad..though we had a pretty good economy from Reagon and Bush.. Willie and Hillie managed to screw it up and nearly put us into a recession...The last eight years have been very good under the republican majority.. it can stay good so long as another republican wins the white house...even if congress is a majority of democrats.. The only thing worse than Hillary or Obama would be Ted Kennedy... (I wish they hadn't taught him how to swim)... If more people would look at history and admit that the most important thing is the economy, then a republican should be elected President..

Answer 4

Here's a great article by a great progressive economist that goes into depth about our current situation and what it will mean for America's future:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070221/cm_thenation/20070305galbraith

Finally, progressives should turn their energies to a challenge that the Hamiltonians never discuss and seem determined to ignore, and that is to devise effective new rules for the global financial system. For the world is changing in ways that will not permit a return to the go-go Wild West of international finance of the 1990s, even if Robert Rubin and his colleagues do return to power in 2009.

The 1997 Asian crisis and the 1998 Russian crisis marked--it is now clear--the last days of an illusion: that unfettered global credit markets can govern themselves. Russia has since retreated into itself, Asia is developing a sophisticated substitute for the Asian Monetary Fund we denied them a decade ago and most of Latin America has rejected neoliberal globalization at the polls, while new structures of mutual assistance for development are gradually being built. The chaos of a financial system run by bankers alone is therefore gradually yielding to new systems of control.

We should welcome this development. We should oppose efforts to introduce new instabilities--which is basically the issue today between Wall Street and China. The challenge before us is not to restore the global dominance of American banks. We should not play junior partners in that game but instead should help plan for a smooth transition to something better--protecting as far as possible not symbols of power but the broad benefits of our standard of life.

As part of this, a progressive economics needs to break with the polite traditions of our subject in one other way. We cannot avert our eyes, as many economists habitually do, from the disaster of Bush's foreign policy. The calamity in Iraq is plainly causing the world to rethink how much it can rely on American leadership, and this has consequences already visible in the decline of the dollar. If there is a war with Iran, the rethinking will accelerate, and what we've seen so far could be only a harbinger of greater difficulties still to come.

Although a collapse of the dollar reserve system probably isn't imminent, this issue will not disappear, even if Bush's policies are decisively rejected in 2008. Left unattended, it could lead to a repeat of the 1970s, when progressive hopes were knee-capped by international financial instability, a declining dollar and externally inspired inflation.

This problem defies easy solutions, but we who are progressives, who are populists, who are concerned about the economic security of working Americans, of the country as a whole and of the world system, should be thinking about them. We should be working, with international partners, on blueprints for a new system combining mutual and collective security with economic stabilization. For only this can foster sustainable development worldwide, while at the same time permitting us to attend to social justice and the environment at home.

This is not a job that private banks want to turn over to us. It is therefore not going to be found on the agenda of the Hamilton Project. That is a powerful reason that it should be on ours.

Answer 5

seriously, I'm not a Republican, but I think that Romney, Rudy or McCain would all do quite a bit better than Bush...

I don't know if it would exactly be ideal... but I think they would all be a BIG improvement on foreign relations (no where to go but up) and would hopefully try to do something about the debt...

I'm not sure it's such a longshot either... they have this strangle hold on the south where the south doesn't seem to care what they do, they just vote Republican... so that's tough to deal with that many electoral votes...

Answer 6

We would have had to have had previous years of record deficits and failed foreign policy to have more of them.

Couple of simple questions:

When was the record deficit? 1919, it was 260% of the money collected by the US government.

Who wrote the budget that started the current deficit? Clinton wrote the budget and Congress approved the 2003 budget before George Bush took office in January of 2001.

I could keep going, but, it is so much more fun to listen to morons make fools of themselves and prove how uneducated they are!

Answer 7

Republicans would be smarter to sit this one out and let the Iraq bill fall on the dem`s like Carter with the Vietnam bill.

Answer 8

Yes, the probablility of that is really great, Repuglicans believe supply side economics works, however it only works for the rich, it leaves the poor and middle class behind. So 4 more years of supply side economics will do both record deficits and foreign policy at the end of a gun.

Answer 9

Why yes, yes it will be. The only one who will benefit will be Jimmy Carter, as no one will mock the recession of the 70's anymore.

Answer 10

The grown ups would be in charge again! THEY don't steal elections, THEY win them!