@jpc4p

I don't mind the president citing external factors, as long as it's just trying to help the country understand how it's affecting the economy. He's actually correct, in my opinion, that the problems in Europe are the real cause behind the sudden market drop, rather than the downgraded credit rating on Treasuries.

The problem comes in when he prefaces that comment by implying that his administration was responsible for the "recovery" leading up to it. If anything, his administration's actions either had very little impact, or detracted from it, both short term and long term.

I'd prefer that he owned up to the facts, that his administration is not where the recovery comes from, and it's also not the primary cause of the downturn. He can try to help explain what's going on, but should not try to take credit for every upswing, whether it be jobs, the DOW, or whatever. I think he'd be smarter to say the American people are responsible for any recovery.

Overall though, it seems like the market drops every time Obama opens his mouth, so I think if he really wanted to help, he's just shut up and try to get out of the way.

I'm really hoping the GOP will come up with a viable candidate for 2012, which probably translates to someone more socially moderate, without all the Christian fundamentalist overtones.

I'm not even a fan of the GOP, and I'd actually prefer gridlock most of the time, given the way the system currently works. However, somebody has to reverse some of the awful policies Obama (Reid/Pelosi) has pushed through first, otherwise the economy is going down the toilet in the mid to long term. I think a GOP majority in the executive and legislative branches for at least 2 years is probably the only feasible way to get there.

I liked most of what you had to say except this:

"I think a GOP majority in the executive and legislative branches for at least 2 years is probably the only feasible way to get there."

The problem for someone like you looking for an alternative in the GOP is that there aren't any.

Yeah you can point to Ron Paul, but he has 0% chance of getting the nomination (or beating Obama).

Whoever the GOP puts up is going to be another corporate shill, spouting the social-neocon rhetoric to make the Christians happy, while resuming the same economic policies of the Bush era.

If I thought there was a better way that actually had a chance, I'd be for it. I'm probably more libertarian / Tea Party-ish than any other party in my views (aside from the Christian fundamentalist crap). I say probably because I really haven't researched their platform all that much, I just tend to agree with a lot of what I read and hear about it.

I just don't really believe that any libertarian candidate has a real chance of winning the presidency in the short term. I think it may take more congressional presence first, so that it doesn't seem like such a fringe party at the national level. They also need to have some real money behind them, the way the big parties do. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical about it, but I am.

Do you have a better idea that you think would work to accomplish the same objective?

I also wish there was more of a runoff election system, for "people like me". Let me cast a vote for a libertarian candidate, but let me choose a 2nd choice from the big parties, or just rank them all from top to bottom. Eliminate the bottom candidates, and then recast the votes until we have a winner.

The problem is, that only hurts the Republicans and Democrats, who have all of the money and power behind them, so how and why would that ever change.

I swear, sometimes I feel like just voting out the incumbent, all the time. They all suck.

There's absolutely zero chance of accomplishing that through the republican party.

If a progressive v moderate Dem battle doesnt represent you, then yeah - you're looking at a 3rd party candidate, which woefully in this country does little good on the national-scale-election scene.

Well I'm starting with the cynical belief that nobody outside the main 2 parties can win. Based on that, I firmly believe a republican choice is superior to 4 more years of Obama. I know I'm saying that without even knowing the Republican candidate. I feel that strongly about how harmful Obama is to our future.

My next best hope is strong Republican control of congress with Obama re-elected. If they could actually get enough to override vetos, then great. I just think having the override majority in both houses is pretty far fetched, moreso than getting Obama out.

Perry? Romney? Bachmann?

I mean we can agree to disagree, but to me, you're just ignoring the truth of those candidates.

It'd certainly be nice to have someone represent your beliefs, but just closing your eyes and pretending its the case wont make it true.

I'm not ignoring their beliefs. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. 4 more years for Obama to cement his programs would be a disaster. I would expect much worse from him next term, if he didn't have to worry about re-election.

If we move too much farther down the path to socialism, it will be very hard to reverse course. If the economy sucks for my entire adult life and retirement, and the young adulthood of my children, because of what happened from 2008-2016, I find that unacceptable.

I expect that any really extreme beliefs like the Christian fundamentalist crap won't matter much anyway. Congress will vote down the vast majority of that stuff, including supreme court nominees. I think most of that is just talk to get them the money and voter base to get elected, just like a lot of what Obama "promised", like bringing our troops home.

None of the candidates are great, but if the country votes Obama back in, they are a bunch of fools.

If people vote for the GOP nominee because they think they're better off, then they're fools.

What is it about these programs that bother you so much? You can call it "socialism," which it isn't, but I'm not sure what part is the cause of you disastrous prognostication