Obama, trying to keep his job...

RW81233

EdsonNascimento wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

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.

RW81233

Wilds wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Is Ron Paul still running?

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

Also stagflation actually began under Nixon...

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).

RW81233

EdsonNascimento wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Also stagflation actually began under Nixon...

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.

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

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?)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Wilds... Edson... et al....

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!

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

whygohome

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Wilds... Edson... et al....

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.

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Wilds... Edson... et al....

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.

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Wilds... Edson... et al....

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.

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

ACCBootlegGoddess

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!