Obama '08?

@Advocate,

I disagree with Krugman to the extent that the stimulus plan adds too many social programs at a time when job creation should be their number one priority.

Giving blood transfusions to the auto companies when people are losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands is a lost cause; many people aren't looking to buying cars any time soon. They are more worried about their shelter and food; many are already sacrificing their medical care because they lost their health insurance along with their jobs.

The Obama team seems to have lost their sense of what is important to revive our economy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Obama team seems to have lost their sense of what is important to revive our economy.

They never had any sense to lose. Call it a snide comment, I don't care, I think its an honest assessment. I do not believe Obama has ever understood free market economics, nor has he believed in it, he instead had his intellectual ideas developed over time about what he thought would work, which is some kind of a "third way," something of a hybrid of free market economics and socialism / Marxism. Thats what all the of the "change' mantra was about, long on slogans but short on details, and now we are beginning to see a few details. So upon inheriting the slowing economy, he seized the opportunity to talk the economy down and convince everyone it was one of the direst of circumstances in history, so that he could pass some of his social programs masquerading as a stimulus bill. After all, "never waste a crisis to get things done."

Now he seems to be changing his tune slighltly, perhaps temporarily, perhaps for a longer while, I don't know, beginning to think he needs to talk things up to keep his approval numbers up, don't let things get too bad. And he is stumbling around trying to figure out whether to try to institute more of his philosophical beliefs into the economy or buy into capitalism for a while to the necessary extent to keep things going now. Thus we have a president in whom alot of people are unsure of what he believes or wants to do. And if he does not believe in what he is doing or saying half the time, he cannot provide leadership.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, Your use of the term "socialism" doesn't even come close, so quit being an arse. In the first place, your use of socialism is way off base; not even close. Study economics if you must, be quit using terms you don't understand.

0 Replies

@okie,

As far as Im concerned, the Obama team is trying to split their resources too far. Since the GOP has decided to hide and just let the events dictate what their strategy is, this makes the work even more difficult. IT IS , however, not without precedent. The GOP was heavily complicit in running up this mess so, like the thirties, they are going to try to stick their heads in their shells. THE NEW GOP mascot is THE TURTLE.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

And turtles live a very long time and have a thick skin. Butterflies on the other hand flit around for a few weeks basking in the sun and displaying their pretty colours.

Quote:

A butterfly is an insect of the order Lepidoptera. Like all Lepidoptera, butterflies are notable for their unusual life cycle with a larval caterpillar stage, an inactive pupal stage, and a spectacular metamorphosis into a familiar and colourful winged adult form. Most species are day-flying so they regularly attract attention. The diverse patterns formed by their brightly coloured wings and their erratic yet graceful flight have made butterfly watching a hobby.

It never seems to enter effemm's conk that two can play the game.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

As far as Im concerned, the Obama team is trying to split their resources too far. Since the GOP has decided to hide and just let the events dictate what their strategy is, this makes the work even more difficult. IT IS , however, not without precedent. The GOP was heavily complicit in running up this mess so, like the thirties, they are going to try to stick their heads in their shells. THE NEW GOP mascot is THE TURTLE.

The GOP would have gladly had more say in the stimulus bill, but they were denied. They simply did not have the numbers, period, and it is no secret that Nancy and Harry ran the whole thing. Blame it on being a turtle if you want, but you don't have the votes, you don't have them, not a choice. Consequently, instead of stimulus friendly to stimulating businesses, we get social engineering crap, called stimulus. And it will provide a few jobs for a while, until the money is spent, and then its over, except the government will be bigger and we will be in worse shape than before.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

As far as Im concerned, the Obama team is trying to split their resources too far. Since the GOP has decided to hide and just let the events dictate what their strategy is, this makes the work even more difficult. IT IS , however, not without precedent. The GOP was heavily complicit in running up this mess so, like the thirties, they are going to try to stick their heads in their shells. THE NEW GOP mascot is THE TURTLE.

I am not going to even try to defend the GOP in their part and/or responsibility in creating the current mess. In much of it, they abdicated their fiduciary responsibilities, failed to provide sufficient oversight, failed to act when they had the numbers to do so, and failed to practice sound management of the people's money--in short, too much of the time they behaved as liberal Democrats. And admittedly, their outrage and indignation now rings a bit hollow, especially when you saw GOP fingerprints all over a bunch of those earmarks in the last appropriations bill passed.

But in the GOP's defense, though it is now too little and too late, they have introduced good bills and amendments that would rein in the excesses now, and they have not been allowed to have even a single suggested amendment debated or a single bill sponsored by a Republican passed out of committee, much less seriously considered. So despite a few RINO votes they're picking up along the way, the Democrats are going to have to own everything that has happened after January 21 since they are the only ones with the power to put it out there and the President is the one who makes it finally official.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

By your observation that the democrats "will own everything," that's because the US voters gave them the confidence and votes to do so. With most legislation coming out of Washington, there will always be the pros and cons usually based on political affiliation. Doesn't mean all that much when the administration and congress has all the power to do good or screw it up. That's life.

0 Replies

Trouble in the camps, more are suspecting Obama is in over his head. It is not just the Limbaughs of the world, but other people, such as David Broder.
Some people are starting to call Obama "incompetent." That does not sit well with the faithful, but it appears the bloom is off the rose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302274_pf.html

"...
Congress has taken note of the way Obama backed down from his anti-earmark stance, a clear signal that he is leery of any showdown with the lawmakers. Despite his popularity, Obama is not an intimidating figure, and so he can expect to be tested time and again.

....These are people who deeply admire and respect Obama and wish him nothing but success. But, like some thoughtful congressional Democrats with whom I have spoken, they worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

Criticism of this kind is not an augury of failure. But it does signal that the honeymoon is over. "

1 Reply

@okie,

Nothing wrong with questioning what the Obama administration is doing. The people who are calling Obama "incompetent" is based on ignorance. This is the very first time any president during contemporary times has had to fight several important fires at one time; millions losing their jobs and homes, many banks still on the verge of bankruptcy, and most having lost from 30% to 50% of their retirement savings.

Nobody still knows how effective Obama's actions will be for the short-term and long-term.

You think you're smarter than all of Obama's advisers who have the background in education and experience to assist him to make the right kind of plans to save our economy.

You only continue to show your ignorance by using words such as "incompetent."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This is the very first time any president during contemporary times has had to fight several important fires at one time; millions losing their jobs and homes, many banks still on the verge of bankruptcy, and most having lost from 30% to 50% of their retirement savings.

So,FDR wasnt in contemporary times?
After all, he faced all of the same problems and more.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

FDR's time was completely different from both an economic and political standpoint. The comparisons are probably too difficult for you to understand.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

But you admit that he faced the same problems.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So,FDR wasnt in contemporary times?

That's correct. FDR wasn't a U.S. president in contemporary times except for a very few of our older posters.

FDR most certainly wasn't contemporary to you.

Quote:

1: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time

M-W

from the synonyms' segment at M-W

Quote:

coincident mean existing or occurring at the same time. contemporary is likely to apply to people and what relates to them <Abraham Lincoln was contemporary with Charles Darwin>.

Being deliberately obtuse can be cute in a teen dating situation. Not so appealing in a debate between adults.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

But you admit that he faced the same problems.

It's impossible for FDR to have faced the same problems. The global political and economic situation is very different from what it was 6 and 7 decades ago. The world has changed. It is much more complicated and messily intertwined now. Pros and cons to the differences, but there are differences.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth, Thank you. I still doubt mm understands what you mean.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

So are you saying that when FDR was elected people werent losing their homes, banks werent failing, jobs were being lost, and that the economy wasnt in the tank?

This is what CI said...

Quote:

This is the very first time any president during contemporary times has had to fight several important fires at one time; millions losing their jobs and homes, many banks still on the verge of bankruptcy, and most having lost from 30% to 50% of their retirement savings.

And thats what I was responding to, nothing more.
Now, are you saying that FDR didnt face those same problems?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

You suffer from what is called myopia; one track.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

No, I just believe that words mean things.
So when you say that no President has ever faced those same problems all at once, I have to challenge you on it because you know you are wrong.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
This is the very first time any president during contemporary times has had to fight several important fires at one time; millions losing their jobs and homes, many banks still on the verge of bankruptcy, and most having lost from 30% to 50% of their retirement savings.

And thats what I was responding to, nothing more.
Now, are you saying that FDR didnt face those same problems?

nope - I'm not letting you off the hook on this.

You tried to pick on the "FDR not being a contemporary president" piece, and when you realized that was a mistake you tried another tactic which was similarly unworkable

FDR is not a contemporary president.

The situation faced by the current government is significantly different than the situation faced at the time of FDR.

Trying to throw FDR into your argument set was a mistake.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know