Edson... I appreciate the time you took to respond to me, but I was looking for a little more. For example, you made mention that Obama is 'incompetent'. Can you give me an example of his leadership that might support such a claim?
Further, I think it is fair to state that the economic issues facing your country are deep problems that took root under Bush's leadership. Implementing change that can reverse the spiraling course the economy had been set for is a massive challenge where- perhaps unfairly- blaming Obama might be an easy thing to do. Is there an answer you can provide that would solve the economic problems your country faces?
As well, what is consensus for how should Obama proceed in managing middle east policies right now that meet past, current, and future objectives?
Lastly, is there such a thing as an invalid opinion?
Yes, there is such a thing. Just as there are stupid questions (not yours, just making a point).
This is how I say he is incompetent - the number of people with jobs today is less than the number 3 years ago. You can say new jobless claims are down, and it doesn't mean a whole lot (just like saying they are up is meaningless at this point). In the economy he's now created, folks give up. So, the truest measure of the economy is how many people are actually working. That is lower now than when Bush left office (I am not making an argument for how good or bad Bush was, but the comparison is startling). So, Obama and the media change the story and the focus, and continue to blame past ghosts. The problem is we are doing worse now than 3 years ago. The basic measures of prosperity in terms of individual and collectively is who is working. And his programs simply have not worked. He had 2 years with a democratic legislature and he squandered it geting an equally ineffectual health care bill passed (not arguing the NEED for broader health care coverage. But, this clearly did not only NOT do that, it probably hampered it for years to come). So, he only has himself to blame for losing that power.
Anyone voting for him in the next election is doing it foolishly. It's the evil I know premise. Why not try something different? This is clearly not working. If anything, activists should be waiting for him to leave. Instead, they will rationalize why the Republican nominee is no good (which, might in fact be correct. But, we KNOW this administration is ineffectual).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I wouldn't be so quick to disregard a foreigners opinion. Often, their stance comes across as more objective as a lot of the partisan stuff is filtered out. Certainly, I would give more weight to their opinion on Bush Jr.'s international relations failings.
History will label George Bush as one of the worst, and Obama as someone who had to clean up the steaming pile left behind. It'll take another 10-15 years to right Bush's wrongs.
Wow!! What does this have to do with his a foreigner? I don't validate or invalidate it on that basis. I listen to his suppositions, and make my judgment that way. Where he comes from is irrelevant. Yes, it gives him a different point of view. But, that doesn't make it any better or worse. His views are what they are. And labeling him or his comments doesn't do anyone any good.
And, you have that backward. I think history will be kinder to Bush and less so for Obama. I won't go into why, as that will derail this thread (it's not about Bush. It's about Obama). And neither of us really know the answer to that question anyway.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I wouldn't be so quick to disregard a foreigners opinion. Often, their stance comes across as more objective as a lot of the partisan stuff is filtered out. Certainly, I would give more weight to their opinion on Bush Jr.'s international relations failings.
History will label George Bush as one of the worst, and Obama as someone who had to clean up the steaming pile left behind. It'll take another 10-15 years to right Bush's wrongs.
Wow!! What does this have to do with his a foreigner? I don't validate or invalidate it on that basis. I listen to his suppositions, and make my judgment that way. Where he comes from is irrelevant. Yes, it gives him a different point of view. But, that doesn't make it any better or worse. His views are what they are. And labeling him or his comments doesn't do anyone any good.
And, you have that backward. I think history will be kinder to Bush and less so for Obama. I won't go into why, as that will derail this thread (it's not about Bush. It's about Obama). And neither of us really know the answer to that question anyway.
I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.
In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.
I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.
In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.
You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.
Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.
Missed your last part - what's a better indicator? Most on welfare/unemployment/gov't dole?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.
In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.
You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.
Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.
What Reagan got was 100 times worse? Please. I think you're on your own with that opinion.
I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.
In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.
You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.
Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.
What Reagan got was 100 times worse? Please. I think you're on your own with that opinion.
No. That is fact. They created a term for what Carter did - STAGFLATION!!!! A new word!!! Just so they could describe the never before seen and impossible to create situation where prices are rising AND interest rates are going through the roof. Toss in a little oil embargo and hostage crisis, and we were doing a-ok!!! The only thing he didn't do is get nuclear bombs pointed at us from a few hundred miles away (a Kennedy special!).
Any discussion of worst President and worst economy and worst national psyche begins and ends with the Peanut Farmer.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I'm pretty confident in stating that anyone who thinks what Reagan did to our economy was a success for the United States as a whole (not just the top end) has very little understanding of economics. Despite the failure of neoliberalism to provide for the many it is so pervasive that even our "socialist/marxist/communist" (whichever random one people use to demean the president without saying they hate him because he's black, because, in America being communist is equally as bad as being black...j/k...mostly) turns to market-based solutions to market-based problems. This is why people on the left are frustrated with Obama, because while he's doing all this stuff to keep his job, we aren't getting the socialist/marxist/communist black president we had hoped for. Still...at least he's not Mitt/Newt/Ron.
On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?
I'm pretty confident in stating that anyone who thinks what Reagan did to our economy was a success for the United States as a whole (not just the top end) has very little understanding of economics. Despite the failure of neoliberalism to provide for the many it is so pervasive that even our "socialist/marxist/communist" (whichever random one people use to demean the president without saying they hate him because he's black, because, in America being communist is equally as bad as being black...j/k...mostly) turns to market-based solutions to market-based problems. This is why people on the left are frustrated with Obama, because while he's doing all this stuff to keep his job, we aren't getting the socialist/marxist/communist black president we had hoped for. Still...at least he's not Mitt/Newt/Ron.
On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?
Ha, ha, ha. I always love disagreements that begin with - well, you must be stupid if you believe that.
Look at the history of NYC as it pertains to David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. It shows the success of giving businesses opportunity, reducing welfare rolls and increasing enforcement of laws. And that is a microcosm of what Reagan did for the Nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be.. well, I won't label you. But, increasing dependence on the state is never a prosperous thing for the lower class.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.
I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:
1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.
2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.
3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.
Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?
Thanks.
I'll take a stab.
1. Right and wrong. The economic problem is a result of our policy of big government (bale outs, Departments of the (insert 1 of 20 different departments that do nothing and cost a lot), bureaucratic inefficiency , fiat currency, and the boom/bust cycle created by monetary policy. Neither the Democrats or Republicans running have any interest in addressing the real problem. They will simply blame each other back and forth and every 4 or 8 years they will switch who is in the office of the president, but everything will continue as it is.
Ron Paul wants to fix this.
2. Yes and No. The problems in the middle east is a continuation of America's aggressive military expansionism. Where they occupy, propagate, and fight (Un-Congressional) War's and battles all over the globe. This has been done for the past 40 years with no end in sight. It does not matter if it is Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Bush, or Gingrich, or Romney, or Clinton, or Clinton. This policy will not change. The people who profit from sale of arms and the influence they have over both parties will keep it exactly how it is.
Ron Paul wants to change this.
3. I would agree with #3 a bit, as I prefer that if we are going to bankrupt this this country I would prefer the way Obama does it over Bush. But really preferred Bill Clinton. He worked within the system, but seemed to be slightly less war mongering. But Obama hasn't repealed any of the terrible things that Bush did. He just picked up the ball and continued to run with it.
Ron Paul will repeal all of the B.S. that has taken away our liberties.
Ron Paul will bring our troops home and offer less war.
Ron Paul will allow States to make social policy and get the Federal Government out of our lives.
We can still have all the Leftist programs. (just move to California)
We can still have our guns. (Move to Texas)
You can find the America that suits you through smaller government a the Federal level.
I'm pretty confident in stating that anyone who thinks what Reagan did to our economy was a success for the United States as a whole (not just the top end) has very little understanding of economics. Despite the failure of neoliberalism to provide for the many it is so pervasive that even our "socialist/marxist/communist" (whichever random one people use to demean the president without saying they hate him because he's black, because, in America being communist is equally as bad as being black...j/k...mostly) turns to market-based solutions to market-based problems. This is why people on the left are frustrated with Obama, because while he's doing all this stuff to keep his job, we aren't getting the socialist/marxist/communist black president we had hoped for. Still...at least he's not Mitt/Newt/Ron.
On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?
Ha, ha, ha. I always love disagreements that begin with - well, you must be stupid if you believe that.
Look at the history of NYC as it pertains to David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. It shows the success of giving businesses opportunity, reducing welfare rolls and increasing enforcement of laws. And that is a microcosm of what Reagan did for the Nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be.. well, I won't label you. But, increasing dependence on the state is never a prosperous thing for the lower class.
In what reality are you working in? Real wages for everyone but the top 5% have remained the same since 1980. So wealth has gone up in this country because companies can outsource, trade freely, so on and so forth. Who does this benefit? The poor? How possibly could this be true? What sort of hard evidence do you have that the upper-middle class down have benefited from Reaganomics. You can't give me national wealth figures which are easy things to hide behind. Give me some class figures and tell me that people who used to be able to live off of one income, send their child to college with minimal loans, and/or get jobs in American factories are better off today. That's just crazy talk.
Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.
I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:
1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.
2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.
3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.
Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?
Thanks.
I'll take a stab.
1. Right and wrong. The economic problem is a result of our policy of big government (bale outs, Departments of the (insert 1 of 20 different departments that do nothing and cost a lot), bureaucratic inefficiency , fiat currency, and the boom/bust cycle created by monetary policy. Neither the Democrats or Republicans running have any interest in addressing the real problem. They will simply blame each other back and forth and every 4 or 8 years they will switch who is in the office of the president, but everything will continue as it is.
Ron Paul wants to fix this.
2. Yes and No. The problems in the middle east is a continuation of America's aggressive military expansionism. Where they occupy, propagate, and fight (Un-Congressional) War's and battles all over the globe. This has been done for the past 40 years with no end in sight. It does not matter if it is Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Bush, or Gingrich, or Romney, or Clinton, or Clinton. This policy will not change. The people who profit from sale of arms and the influence they have over both parties will keep it exactly how it is.
Ron Paul wants to change this.
3. I would agree with #3 a bit, as I prefer that if we are going to bankrupt this this country I would prefer the way Obama does it over Bush. But really preferred Bill Clinton. He worked within the system, but seemed to be slightly less war mongering. But Obama hasn't repealed any of the terrible things that Bush did. He just picked up the ball and continued to run with it.
Ron Paul will repeal all of the B.S. that has taken away our liberties.
Ron Paul will bring our troops home and offer less war.
Ron Paul will allow States to make social policy and get the Federal Government out of our lives.
We can still have all the Leftist programs. (just move to California)
We can still have our guns. (Move to Texas)
You can find the America that suits you through smaller government a the Federal level.
I've read that revisionist history, as well. Yes, there were signs of those things. No doubt. And if that administration had continued, maybe we'd be talking about Nixon. Or, maybe he would have averted it. But, it didn't. And the true "take off" happened when Carter fueled it through his myopic financial policies (and aided by his incompetent handling of foreign affairs - which is an unusual double whammy. Most Pres are at least decent at one aspect).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I've read that revisionist history, as well. Yes, there were signs of those things. No doubt. And if that administration had continued, maybe we'd be talking about Nixon. Or, maybe he would have averted it. But, it didn't. And the true "take off" happened when Carter fueled it through his myopic financial policies (and aided by his incompetent handling of foreign affairs - which is an unusual double whammy. Most Pres are at least decent at one aspect).
I've never said that we're all Keyensians now, but Richard Nixon certainly did. Anyway if you want to trace stagflation and neoliberalism back to its roots you gotta go back to the 50s and 60s where businesses were realizing that creating durable goods was bad for capitalism. anyway...Obama.
I've never said that we're all Keyensians now, but Richard Nixon certainly did. Anyway if you want to trace stagflation and neoliberalism back to its roots you gotta go back to the 50s and 60s where businesses were realizing that creating durable goods was bad for capitalism. anyway...Obama.
I agree nothing in a vacuum. And to your attempt to get this back on topic...
Are folks better off on welfare or with a job? When the answer is the former (including unemployment which is a form), that's when we're in trouble.
(And to go back a little off topic - what was unemployment at under Reagan? I seem to recall a number that folks thought impossible. How is that a bad thing?)
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I appreciate the responses. It's clear people you are all passionate for your political beliefs. It's tough when the country is 'in the dumpers' (for lack of a better word) to remain confident in your leadership core. I have to say that much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when the gomer, Bush, was replaced with Obama and the hope was that peace and order could be restored.
This hasn't happened and now people (everywhere) have become frustrated and unsettled that the changes hoped for are either not occurring or have been too slow to occur. It is my humble opinion that any leader stepping into the fray after Bush was destined for a leadership term marked with failures. The US had deep problems take their roots which band-aid solutions (quick fixes) could not correct. In one of my earlier posts (I think the 2nd marked for Edson), I asked what some solutions for these economical and military problems might be. None came my way. It is clear that the answers are much more difficult to produce than simply affixing blame and hoping the next guy might be able to conjure the magical solution.
Thanks for listening and your patience as I try to better acclimatize myself with current affairs and sentiments in your country!
Ha, ha, ha. I always love disagreements that begin with - well, you must be stupid if you believe that.
Look at the history of NYC as it pertains to David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. It shows the success of giving businesses opportunity, reducing welfare rolls and increasing enforcement of laws. And that is a microcosm of what Reagan did for the Nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be.. well, I won't label you. But, increasing dependence on the state is never a prosperous thing for the lower class.
Mayor's have little to do with welfare. You're trying to credit Dinkins and Giuliani with reducing welfare rolls, when the reduction happened nationally in the 90's under Clinton.
I appreciate the responses. It's clear people you are all passionate for your political beliefs. It's tough when the country is 'in the dumpers' (for lack of a better word) to remain confident in your leadership core. I have to say that much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when the gomer, Bush, was replaced with Obama and the hope was that peace and order could be restored.
This hasn't happened and now people (everywhere) have become frustrated and unsettled that the changes hoped for are either not occurring or have been too slow to occur. It is my humble opinion that any leader stepping into the fray after Bush was destined for a leadership term marked with failures. The US had deep problems take their roots which band-aid solutions (quick fixes) could not correct. In one of my earlier posts (I think the 2nd marked for Edson), I asked what some solutions for these economical and military problems might be. None came my way. It is clear that the answers are much more difficult to produce than simply affixing blame and hoping the next guy might be able to conjure the magical solution.
Thanks for listening and your patience as I try to better acclimatize myself with current affairs and sentiments in your country!
Let's not forget the foolishness in believing that an economic collapse can be fixed in 3 years. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification culture--a sure sign of a lack of intelligence and an Id in overdrive.
Obviously, someone with an "R" next to their name would have fixed everything in about 18 months. And, many of us on this board would have fixed everything in 12 months........but instead we talk and talk, and post on a message board, and talk and talk and talk.
I appreciate the responses. It's clear people you are all passionate for your political beliefs. It's tough when the country is 'in the dumpers' (for lack of a better word) to remain confident in your leadership core. I have to say that much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when the gomer, Bush, was replaced with Obama and the hope was that peace and order could be restored.
This hasn't happened and now people (everywhere) have become frustrated and unsettled that the changes hoped for are either not occurring or have been too slow to occur. It is my humble opinion that any leader stepping into the fray after Bush was destined for a leadership term marked with failures. The US had deep problems take their roots which band-aid solutions (quick fixes) could not correct. In one of my earlier posts (I think the 2nd marked for Edson), I asked what some solutions for these economical and military problems might be. None came my way. It is clear that the answers are much more difficult to produce than simply affixing blame and hoping the next guy might be able to conjure the magical solution.
Thanks for listening and your patience as I try to better acclimatize myself with current affairs and sentiments in your country!
Let's not forget the foolishness in believing that an economic collapse can be fixed in 3 years. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification culture--a sure sign of a lack of intelligence and an Id in overdrive.
Obviously, someone with an "R" next to their name would have fixed everything in about 18 months. And, many of us on this board would have fixed everything in 12 months........but instead we talk and talk, and post on a message board, and talk and talk and talk.
President Obama said it. that is why people thought it could be done. Pass the stimulus, it will stop the bleeding...bail out the banks, it will stop the bleeding, pass dodd-frank...it will help...at what point do we realize that they don't know how to fix it? Thre phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.
President Obama is in a tough place...he knew that going in...he wanted the job...yet we hear about the previous administration for the first two years of his presidency....when is it his? can the next guy blame the President for the first two years of failure? He has gotten a lot of what he wanted...and it hasn't worked.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I appreciate the responses. It's clear people you are all passionate for your political beliefs. It's tough when the country is 'in the dumpers' (for lack of a better word) to remain confident in your leadership core. I have to say that much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when the gomer, Bush, was replaced with Obama and the hope was that peace and order could be restored.
This hasn't happened and now people (everywhere) have become frustrated and unsettled that the changes hoped for are either not occurring or have been too slow to occur. It is my humble opinion that any leader stepping into the fray after Bush was destined for a leadership term marked with failures. The US had deep problems take their roots which band-aid solutions (quick fixes) could not correct. In one of my earlier posts (I think the 2nd marked for Edson), I asked what some solutions for these economical and military problems might be. None came my way. It is clear that the answers are much more difficult to produce than simply affixing blame and hoping the next guy might be able to conjure the magical solution.
Thanks for listening and your patience as I try to better acclimatize myself with current affairs and sentiments in your country!
Let's not forget the foolishness in believing that an economic collapse can be fixed in 3 years. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification culture--a sure sign of a lack of intelligence and an Id in overdrive.
Obviously, someone with an "R" next to their name would have fixed everything in about 18 months. And, many of us on this board would have fixed everything in 12 months........but instead we talk and talk, and post on a message board, and talk and talk and talk.
President Obama said it. that is why people thought it could be done. Pass the stimulus, it will stop the bleeding...bail out the banks, it will stop the bleeding, pass dodd-frank...it will help...at what point do we realize that they don't know how to fix it? Thre phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.
President Obama is in a tough place...he knew that going in...he wanted the job...yet we hear about the previous administration for the first two years of his presidency....when is it his? can the next guy blame the President for the first two years of failure? He has gotten a lot of what he wanted...and it hasn't worked.
Read up on Reagan blasting Carter in his first term. Read his first term SOTUs. Find me an instance where Obama came out and said Bush destroyed this country or Bush ruined everything. There is a big difference between the statement, "we inherited a mess" and calling out the previous president by name, which is what Saint Ronnie did.
Yes, Obama made a mistake in thinking the stimulus would bring unemployment down to 8%. That's why people get away with saying "it didn't work." The administration, due to the poor choice for an economic team, underestimated the severity of the economic crisis. Geithner, Summers, Bernanke (and Greenspan), etc, were wrong. Krugman was right.
But, the stimulus did stave off a depression or a more severe recession. In that sense, it worked. Now we are in positive growth territory. Taxes are STILL extremely low on the job-creators, and that is why the Right has shifted their line of excuses to "regulations." I have yet to see a list of burdensome regulations: http://www.globalurban.org/Jobs_vs_the_Environment.pdf http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm
As I said in my earlier post, if a Republican president was in office now, and took over for a Democratic president who left the country in the shape that the Bush Admin did, many, many, many folks with Rs next to their name would be singing a different tune. This is a major problem, because it shows a serious lack of critical thinking, and worse, an ability to think for one's self. This goes for everybody.
Ok right now Obama is trying to keep his job yes. ANY president would be on Jan 27th of an election year.
One thing that nobody has mentioned with respect to Obama's term is how quickly many centre centre/right leaning people that have voted republican before, but voted for Obama this time, got voters remorse and that manifested itself in the congressional elections.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it a little over a year after the election that the American voters put a republican majority in congress?? Isn't the Senate almost a 50/50 split? Didn't most of those Republican congressman refuse to pass anything that the Democrats put forward? How can ANY government be effective if they are essentially neutered (due to lack of a better term).
I know people will argue that he had more than a year before that to pass things and this is true. In addition do dealing with the collapsing economy and the big business bail outs, He spent that year and a bit a) going over the books and seeing just how big of a mess GW left him while putting out fires (see the before mentioned bail outs) while hiring his own advisers and staffers b) familiarizing himself on the war efforts and other foreign policy decisions made under GW and c) Working his butt off to get his health care bill through. (The merits of that bill is a debate for a different thread though)
You can't expect ANY government to be able to solve all of the countries problems in such a short time. The next 3 years saw mostly bickering between the two parties and not a lot being done. That can't all be placed on Obama, especially when you consider the rise of the Tea Party and the harder WAY further right leaning opinions of Republicans. Nobody in Washington (in politics in general) can agree on exactly what needs to be done to fix the economy.
I really hope Obama gets back in. I hope that most people see through the scare tactics that will be used by both parties and that the anti-Obama vote isn't that wide spread. I mean come on...President Gingrich?? President Romney? That scares me more!
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
Comments
Yes, there is such a thing. Just as there are stupid questions (not yours, just making a point).
This is how I say he is incompetent - the number of people with jobs today is less than the number 3 years ago. You can say new jobless claims are down, and it doesn't mean a whole lot (just like saying they are up is meaningless at this point). In the economy he's now created, folks give up. So, the truest measure of the economy is how many people are actually working. That is lower now than when Bush left office (I am not making an argument for how good or bad Bush was, but the comparison is startling). So, Obama and the media change the story and the focus, and continue to blame past ghosts. The problem is we are doing worse now than 3 years ago. The basic measures of prosperity in terms of individual and collectively is who is working. And his programs simply have not worked. He had 2 years with a democratic legislature and he squandered it geting an equally ineffectual health care bill passed (not arguing the NEED for broader health care coverage. But, this clearly did not only NOT do that, it probably hampered it for years to come). So, he only has himself to blame for losing that power.
Anyone voting for him in the next election is doing it foolishly. It's the evil I know premise. Why not try something different? This is clearly not working. If anything, activists should be waiting for him to leave. Instead, they will rationalize why the Republican nominee is no good (which, might in fact be correct. But, we KNOW this administration is ineffectual).
Wow!! What does this have to do with his a foreigner? I don't validate or invalidate it on that basis. I listen to his suppositions, and make my judgment that way. Where he comes from is irrelevant. Yes, it gives him a different point of view. But, that doesn't make it any better or worse. His views are what they are. And labeling him or his comments doesn't do anyone any good.
And, you have that backward. I think history will be kinder to Bush and less so for Obama. I won't go into why, as that will derail this thread (it's not about Bush. It's about Obama). And neither of us really know the answer to that question anyway.
I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.
In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.
You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.
Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.
Missed your last part - what's a better indicator? Most on welfare/unemployment/gov't dole?
What Reagan got was 100 times worse? Please. I think you're on your own with that opinion.
No. That is fact. They created a term for what Carter did - STAGFLATION!!!! A new word!!! Just so they could describe the never before seen and impossible to create situation where prices are rising AND interest rates are going through the roof. Toss in a little oil embargo and hostage crisis, and we were doing a-ok!!! The only thing he didn't do is get nuclear bombs pointed at us from a few hundred miles away (a Kennedy special!).
Any discussion of worst President and worst economy and worst national psyche begins and ends with the Peanut Farmer.
On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?
Ha, ha, ha. I always love disagreements that begin with - well, you must be stupid if you believe that.
Look at the history of NYC as it pertains to David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. It shows the success of giving businesses opportunity, reducing welfare rolls and increasing enforcement of laws. And that is a microcosm of what Reagan did for the Nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be.. well, I won't label you. But, increasing dependence on the state is never a prosperous thing for the lower class.
I'll take a stab.
1. Right and wrong. The economic problem is a result of our policy of big government (bale outs, Departments of the (insert 1 of 20 different departments that do nothing and cost a lot), bureaucratic inefficiency , fiat currency, and the boom/bust cycle created by monetary policy. Neither the Democrats or Republicans running have any interest in addressing the real problem. They will simply blame each other back and forth and every 4 or 8 years they will switch who is in the office of the president, but everything will continue as it is.
Ron Paul wants to fix this.
2. Yes and No. The problems in the middle east is a continuation of America's aggressive military expansionism. Where they occupy, propagate, and fight (Un-Congressional) War's and battles all over the globe. This has been done for the past 40 years with no end in sight. It does not matter if it is Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Bush, or Gingrich, or Romney, or Clinton, or Clinton. This policy will not change. The people who profit from sale of arms and the influence they have over both parties will keep it exactly how it is.
Ron Paul wants to change this.
3. I would agree with #3 a bit, as I prefer that if we are going to bankrupt this this country I would prefer the way Obama does it over Bush. But really preferred Bill Clinton. He worked within the system, but seemed to be slightly less war mongering. But Obama hasn't repealed any of the terrible things that Bush did. He just picked up the ball and continued to run with it.
Ron Paul will repeal all of the B.S. that has taken away our liberties.
Ron Paul will bring our troops home and offer less war.
Ron Paul will allow States to make social policy and get the Federal Government out of our lives.
We can still have all the Leftist programs. (just move to California)
We can still have our guns. (Move to Texas)
You can find the America that suits you through smaller government a the Federal level.
I've read that revisionist history, as well. Yes, there were signs of those things. No doubt. And if that administration had continued, maybe we'd be talking about Nixon. Or, maybe he would have averted it. But, it didn't. And the true "take off" happened when Carter fueled it through his myopic financial policies (and aided by his incompetent handling of foreign affairs - which is an unusual double whammy. Most Pres are at least decent at one aspect).
I agree nothing in a vacuum. And to your attempt to get this back on topic...
Are folks better off on welfare or with a job? When the answer is the former (including unemployment which is a form), that's when we're in trouble.
(And to go back a little off topic - what was unemployment at under Reagan? I seem to recall a number that folks thought impossible. How is that a bad thing?)
I appreciate the responses. It's clear people you are all passionate for your political beliefs. It's tough when the country is 'in the dumpers' (for lack of a better word) to remain confident in your leadership core. I have to say that much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when the gomer, Bush, was replaced with Obama and the hope was that peace and order could be restored.
This hasn't happened and now people (everywhere) have become frustrated and unsettled that the changes hoped for are either not occurring or have been too slow to occur. It is my humble opinion that any leader stepping into the fray after Bush was destined for a leadership term marked with failures. The US had deep problems take their roots which band-aid solutions (quick fixes) could not correct. In one of my earlier posts (I think the 2nd marked for Edson), I asked what some solutions for these economical and military problems might be. None came my way. It is clear that the answers are much more difficult to produce than simply affixing blame and hoping the next guy might be able to conjure the magical solution.
Thanks for listening and your patience as I try to better acclimatize myself with current affairs and sentiments in your country!
Mayor's have little to do with welfare. You're trying to credit Dinkins and Giuliani with reducing welfare rolls, when the reduction happened nationally in the 90's under Clinton.
Let's not forget the foolishness in believing that an economic collapse can be fixed in 3 years. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification culture--a sure sign of a lack of intelligence and an Id in overdrive.
Obviously, someone with an "R" next to their name would have fixed everything in about 18 months. And, many of us on this board would have fixed everything in 12 months........but instead we talk and talk, and post on a message board, and talk and talk and talk.
President Obama said it. that is why people thought it could be done. Pass the stimulus, it will stop the bleeding...bail out the banks, it will stop the bleeding, pass dodd-frank...it will help...at what point do we realize that they don't know how to fix it? Thre phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.
President Obama is in a tough place...he knew that going in...he wanted the job...yet we hear about the previous administration for the first two years of his presidency....when is it his? can the next guy blame the President for the first two years of failure? He has gotten a lot of what he wanted...and it hasn't worked.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Read up on Reagan blasting Carter in his first term. Read his first term SOTUs. Find me an instance where Obama came out and said Bush destroyed this country or Bush ruined everything. There is a big difference between the statement, "we inherited a mess" and calling out the previous president by name, which is what Saint Ronnie did.
Yes, Obama made a mistake in thinking the stimulus would bring unemployment down to 8%. That's why people get away with saying "it didn't work." The administration, due to the poor choice for an economic team, underestimated the severity of the economic crisis. Geithner, Summers, Bernanke (and Greenspan), etc, were wrong. Krugman was right.
But, the stimulus did stave off a depression or a more severe recession. In that sense, it worked. Now we are in positive growth territory. Taxes are STILL extremely low on the job-creators, and that is why the Right has shifted their line of excuses to "regulations." I have yet to see a list of burdensome regulations:
http://www.globalurban.org/Jobs_vs_the_Environment.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm
As I said in my earlier post, if a Republican president was in office now, and took over for a Democratic president who left the country in the shape that the Bush Admin did, many, many, many folks with Rs next to their name would be singing a different tune. This is a major problem, because it shows a serious lack of critical thinking, and worse, an ability to think for one's self. This goes for everybody.
As my friends on Wall St say, "it's the banks, corporations, and Goldman Sachs." Can we throw Apple in there as well?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busin ... ple&st=cse
One thing that nobody has mentioned with respect to Obama's term is how quickly many centre centre/right leaning people that have voted republican before, but voted for Obama this time, got voters remorse and that manifested itself in the congressional elections.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it a little over a year after the election that the American voters put a republican majority in congress?? Isn't the Senate almost a 50/50 split? Didn't most of those Republican congressman refuse to pass anything that the Democrats put forward? How can ANY government be effective if they are essentially neutered (due to lack of a better term).
I know people will argue that he had more than a year before that to pass things and this is true. In addition do dealing with the collapsing economy and the big business bail outs, He spent that year and a bit a) going over the books and seeing just how big of a mess GW left him while putting out fires (see the before mentioned bail outs) while hiring his own advisers and staffers b) familiarizing himself on the war efforts and other foreign policy decisions made under GW and c) Working his butt off to get his health care bill through. (The merits of that bill is a debate for a different thread though)
You can't expect ANY government to be able to solve all of the countries problems in such a short time. The next 3 years saw mostly bickering between the two parties and not a lot being done. That can't all be placed on Obama, especially when you consider the rise of the Tea Party and the harder WAY further right leaning opinions of Republicans. Nobody in Washington (in politics in general) can agree on exactly what needs to be done to fix the economy.
I really hope Obama gets back in. I hope that most people see through the scare tactics that will be used by both parties and that the anti-Obama vote isn't that wide spread. I mean come on...President Gingrich?? President Romney? That scares me more!