What Do You Think About Obama So Far?

[Rudy]

I'm curious. Has anyone changed their mind, either positively or negatively, from the opinion they held of him when he was elected?

I thought very poorly of him back then (not that his opponent was any better,) and he's done nothing to change that opinion, but I'm curious to see what the general impression of the first 8 weeks of his presidency are.

I'm especially unimpressed by his current attitude towards earmarks, which he was such a vigorous opponent of on the campaign trail, as well as the numerous road trips he's been making rather than doing actual work. Not to mention the embarrassing gift to the British PM.

Contrary opinions, and agreement, both desired.

[thederelict]

I was ambivalent about both candidates during the election. I found Obama's grandiose slogans particularly annoying (an INTJ trait perhaps?;D). My view of him has slightly improved since, but I'm still not a member of his creepy fan club.

[Pandemonium]

Illuminati head in the white house! He is my main man!





Pandemonium added to this post, 1 minutes and 19 seconds later...

JKS*

I think he is doing a good job. Well anyone doing anything constitutes a good job in that position. War lord Bush was great in that respect.

[Henry]

I'm curious. Has anyone changed their mind, either positively or negatively, from the opinion they held of him when he was elected?

I thought very poorly of him back then (not that his opponent was any better,) and he's done nothing to change that opinion, but I'm curious to see what the general impression of the first 8 weeks of his presidency are.

I'm especially unimpressed by his current attitude towards earmarks, which he was such a vigorous opponent of on the campaign trail, as well as the numerous road trips he's been making rather than doing actual work. Not to mention the embarrassing gift to the British PM.

Contrary opinions, and agreement, both desired.

Other than the 2nd round of bank bailouts and a handful of left/right partisanship that he's engaging in, I rather think that he's doing an excellent job, tackling the issues in the right order (ie first stimulating aggregate demand, then addressing the only major long term structural issue with the macroeconomy: the health care cartels), and actually, gasp, talking to people we don't immediately agree with.

[Storm]

Here's my question about the DVDs. Are they in the right formant so that Brown can watch them in the UK?

[boldbidder]

I enthusiastically voted for Obama because he offered a measured deliberate temperament and an unabashedly powerful intellect, a staunch departure from the previous presidency. His opponent graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, showed utter incompetence in his early years and only achieved what he has because he's the son and grandson of Admirals, no way in hell I could back someone like that.

Regarding his current performance I must admit that my enthusiasm as been tempered substantially. Particularly the administration seems to be toiling over the banking crisis; if we're gonna pump billions of dollars into the banks nationalize the frakkers already.

The stimulus bill was equally uninspiring. Instead of piling on the shiite; cut payroll taxes(or stay them temporarily), extend jobless benefits, & increase supply of food stamps. Infrastructure projects are OK, but I know first hand being a Chicago native that roads and bridges are the biggest rackets next to the ice sculpture industry.

Good stuff he's done: pledging to close Gitmo, authorizing government funding of stem cell research, setting a time line for withdrawal from Iraq, and beginning to role back that god-awful (pun intended) law about healthcare workers being able to refuse to do their jobs because of their religious beliefs (pick a different frakking profession).

[LaoTzu]

I agree with boldbidder on all points, and would just like to add that I think the right wingers out there are getting really pathetic...

Fact is, the economy was destroyed by the Neo-Cons. They are desperately trying to pass the buck...I mean... nobody expected Obama to 'fix' everything in the first 100days... that is, nobody but cynical right wingers :P

[Tragic Hero]

Other than the 2nd round of bank bailouts and a handful of left/right partisanship that he's engaging in, I rather think that he's doing an excellent job, tackling the issues in the right order (ie first stimulating aggregate demand, then addressing the only major long term structural issue with the macroeconomy: the health care cartels), and actually, gasp, talking to people we don't immediately agree with.

You didn't really answer the question.

His opponent graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, showed utter incompetence in his early years and only achieved what he has because he's the son and grandson of Admirals, no way in hell I could back someone like that.

Why couldn't you support someone who was rebellious in their youth and didn't pay attention in class? In respect to your second statement, I do believe that McCain was helped greatly by his heritage and later on by marrying into money; Is this a good reason to not vote for someone? Would you oppose Democrat politicians on similar grounds?

[Rudy]

Fact is, the economy was destroyed by the Neo-Cons. They are desperately trying to pass the buck...I mean... nobody expected Obama to 'fix' everything in the first 100days... that is, nobody but cynical right wingers :P
My current problem with Obama has nothing to do with him not fixing the economy, since I don't expect that his policies will fix the economy ever; I never did. My problem stems more from his apparent reversal of campaign trail promises regarding earmarks, and the extraordinarily inefficient way in which his administration seems to be running so far. He's spending an awful lot of time on the road; the campaign is over now.

I agree with boldbidder about the good things that he's done, the man's not worthless, but they are all fairly minor, especially since his "timeline" is a very long-term one; it doesn't really seem to match what he promised. I don't think an earlier withdrawal is possible, but he had previously said that it was.

As far as your assertion of "fact", I will not argue the details here, since there are other threads about it, but it is not an established "fact" at all that the economic problems are a result of "neo-con" policies. There is nothing even close to a consensus on the cause among experts on the matter, so don't act like there is. I can admit that I'm not really sure what the root cause is, but the idea that you can state the cause as a "fact", or even that you can narrow it to a single cause, is laughable.

[Holiman]

I am a registered republican but realized rather early on no republican could win in our present climate, I wont go into that. Mcain was a nightmare from the start Palin just piled on, I voted reluctantly with Obama mostly because of the same reasons boldbidder stated. So far I havent been let down, President Obama has taken long strides in the first few days more than President Clinton was able to do by far, not that I was much of a fan of him.

The mess we are in is simply not confined to a party and spans decades, we are trying to bail out a sinking ship without plugging the holes. The land is way to far to try to swim towards so until everyone on board takes a bucket in hand, or plugs some holes instead of arguing which is needed first we will get nowhere.

Can anyone say in regards to the present crises that President Obama isnt actually trying his best?

[gestalt]

Has anyone changed their mind, either positively or negatively, from the opinion they held of him when he was elected? Yeah. I was ambivalent about him from the start. I preferred McCain's straight-up alpha attitude about issues; I think McCain is a more honest politician. Not that Obama is not honest, but his thinking is circular and all-encompassing: I sometimes find his perspective of reality (point of view) a turn-off. In my opinion this is clearly strategic on his part.

I'm also turned off by the way I feel after I listen to him. It's like he's trying to glad-hand me, you know? Let's hear the straight shit, not the obviously perfected eloquent speech that is obviously so-well orchestrated to the multi-dimensional political assertions and needs of our great republic. WTF is wrong, WTF needs to happen for results?

I don't like being manipulated but I did vote for the smoothness.

.02

EDIT: Most of my personal feelings are probably attributable to one simple fact: I don't know the complexities of what he's talking about. He seems like he's doing an awesome job so far, respect.

[acyckowski]

I'm impressed. He's delivering us to socialism way faster than I imagined possible. As for foreign policy, he's doing a tremendous job of offending our allies and encouraging our enemies. All in all, outstanding effort on O's part. Given his background as an attorney, I wasn't sure he could screw up by the numbers nearly so adroitly.

What is this "powerful intellect" everybody's prattling on about? He's running what, a 120, 125 IQ? Or is he considered smart because he has an advanced degree from an Ivy league school? Unlike his predecessor, who..um...oh, that's right, he had an Ivy MBA.

In all honesty, I'm pleased by his performance so far. Due to the magic of dollar-cost-averaging, this month I bought 4 shares of the market for every 3 I bought in January. What a bargain!

[boldbidder]

Why couldn't you support someone who was rebellious in their youth and didn't pay attention in class? In respect to your second statement, I do believe that McCain was helped greatly by his heritage and later on by marrying into money; Is this a good reason to not vote for someone? Would you oppose Democrat politicians on similar grounds?

Sorry, I don't buy the rebellious in your youth angle. If he were a monster intellect and was just bored with school work OK, but that's what happens when you're in high school, not the Naval Academy. And yes, I would not for a Democrat (or any other party) on similar grounds.

[Holiman]

I'm impressed. He's delivering us to socialism way faster than I imagined possible. As for foreign policy, he's doing a tremendous job of offending our allies and encouraging our enemies.


In all honesty, I'm pleased by his performance so far. Due to the magic of dollar-cost-averaging, this month I bought 4 shares of the market for every 3 I bought in January. What a bargain!

Just responding to these two comments first

Please give us one peice of evidence he is delivering us any closer to solcialism.
I can give several that he is correcting seriouse breaches in our freedoms from the last 8 years.

Also as to foreign policy I sincerely hope your kidding since we were at arguably the worst we have been in our history and only with Hillary Clintons latest trip are we seeing a thaw in international relations.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Second is fairly tripe stuff honestly blaming the economy issues that began in Novermber / December on a president sworn into office in January is pretty sad stuff.

[boldbidder]

What is this "powerful intellect" everybody's prattling on about? He's running what, a 120, 125 IQ?


Have you read his books or do you just watch Fox News? And seriously, a 125? Are you kidding? So if you peg Obama at 125 what's McCain then? 78?

[integratedvelocity]

I would agree with RudyHenkel, specifically concerning earmarks, although I find the overall budget quite problematic as well. Perhaps my attitude is made possible by the insulation provided by financial aid and scholarships at college, but I doubt that shoveling money into the economy is going to fix it, especially with what firms are getting assistance.

acyckowski, I am fairly certain that Obama has an IQ higher than 125. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt Harvard Law School with anything lower. But unfortunately, the fact that Obama has a high IQ doesn't mean that he always agrees with me. *sigh*

[maxpot46]

Have you read his books or do you just watch Fox News? And seriously, a 125? Are you kidding? So if you peg Obama at 125 what's McCain then? 78?I read Audacity of Hope and he came off as kind of a lightweight to me, but maybe he was writing down. I also found the title disgustingly pandering. OTOH I'm biased because I think he's a socialist and I have a very negative opinion of socialists, so take it for what it's worth.

Obviously I'm not a fan of Obama but whatever... I'd hate anyone except Ron Paul. I especially dislike his economic policy but I'd expect no less of a Democrat. I support his foreign policy, at least -- though he is not anti-war enough for me, it's a step in the right direction.

[Tragic Hero]

Boldbidder, if you voted for Obama because of his "measured deliberate temperament and an unabashedly powerful intellect."; would you still have voted for him had he held McCain's ideological positions and McCain held Obama's ideological positions?

[acyckowski]

Obama's IQ: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Russia:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(hint: this means that they think we can do it, and know that they can't)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (this will be interesting to watch unfold. our advantage in the START treaty was our technological advantage: we can keep more warheads in the air at any given time than the russians, who were limited to MIRV's in each ICBM. Every plane counts as 1 warhead)

Poland:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Poland has been a NATO ally since 1999, 10 years after the collapse of Soviet Russian power. Wonder if they're having trouble stomaching their pierogi right about now....)

Iran:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (gosh, i thought the problem was our unwillingness to hold an international rap session....now it turns out that Iran actually hates us.)

Syria:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (oh, good. we all agree that iran isn't nearly as much a problem as israel)

Israel:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Moving towards socialism:
Government-run healthcare: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (634B pieces of evidence in the budget)
Central economic planning: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (Seriously. Explain to me how government mandates are different than government controls.) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (the EIC is not wealth redistribution, how?)
Completing the destruction of the education system: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (The government is doing such a bang-up job of K-12 education, let's give them more influence over pre-school and college, too!)

As for the issue of doctors who refuse to perform abortion on moral grounds, the AMA is split on the ethics: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Of the two opinions, one is based on a weighing of conflicting ethics (responsibility to provide service vs. physician's right to conscientiously abstain on moral grounds). The other boils down to the argument that it's just too hard for a poor hillbilly to travel 100 miles to get an abortion...in other words, a personal convenience vs. moral objection conflict. If you favor the latter position, and further assert that moral objection is subordinate to practical considerations, I will put you down as a "Yes" vote for military conscription.

Any law or executive policy that requires a doctor to destroy what he believes to be a life, on the basis of his religious belief that life begins at conception, is a clear violation of the free exercise clause. Roe v. Wade ruled on the conflict between States' rights to protection and individual rights to privacy, but was silent on the issue of when life begins. If the State requires a physician to perform a procedure he finds morally objective, it will be denying him free exercise of his religious beliefs. Unlike the "right" to abortion, free exercise of religion is specifically enumerated in the first amendment.





acyckowski added to this post, 17 minutes and 19 seconds later...

acyckowski, I am fairly certain that Obama has an IQ higher than 125. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt Harvard Law School with anything lower. But unfortunately, the fact that Obama has a high IQ doesn't mean that he always agrees with me. *sigh*

It's not a fact, though, as the article I cited points out. Were he to release his LSATs, we would at least be able to see where he stacks up against MENSA criteria, and that would give us a reasonable approximation of his IQ. 120-125 is nothing to sneeze at, but it's hardly the stuff of wunderkinden.

My personal experience leads me to three conclusions: 1) You don't have to be that smart to be a lawyer, 2) The really smart kids avoid the Ivy's, but the second-tier intellects go for it, and 3) the media are dominated by people who are marginally capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

Anyhow, I pointed out the Harvard Law thing since for the past 8 years I've been hearing journalists complain about how stupid W was, all the while ignoring his MBA from Harvard. I'm not sure about where anybody else went to University, but at my school the Journalism department was not exactly the most rigorous academic course. Business degrees were a bit harder to come by. When was the last time anybody heard a mother say, "My child is a genius: some day he'll grow up and be a journalist."

Personally, I think he's an intellectual lightweight with delusions of genius and a vocal band of sycophants.

[PeterIMC]

It doesn't really matter how he's doing. (I'm not an american by the way) What was really necessary was a change,... no matter what he does or did, it couldn't be worse than before.

Seriously, Bush has accomplished something that I did not think was possible: The whole world, and when I say the whole world, I really mean the whole world, lost interest, believe, respect, etc. etc. etc. for the USA.

I don't think the world changed its opinion on americans, but it did lose its respect for the USA. Now that respect is coming back. No matter what Obama does, this is the most important thing. The USA needs to be respected in the world. It's good for the balance of power.

[Lycurgus]

I'm not a fan of Obama, and I wasn't from the start. I prefer him over McCain, however only slightly, and only because I wasn't even remotely comfortable with Palin being so close to the Presidency. The fact that Biden is almost as moronic a VP choice was a limiting factor, but not so much as to completely eliminate that grievous oversight in rational thinking -- they didn't even bother to vet her! She energized the base; and alienated moderates.

To expect a president to be able to fix the economy is a horrible misunderstanding of economics. If you were to compare the economy to the Mississippi River, government is currently standing in the delta shoveling silt screaming "We'll stop the flood!"

Simply put; Economies in Capitalist societies are entities unto themselves, and to expect any single entity to be able to control them beyond the most minor of alterations (especially positive ones) is absolute insanity.

The sad fact of the matter is that what Obama and the US Government is doing is going to fail. I'd wager good money (not that there is much of that, anymore) on it. We're going to go into a depression that rivals that of of the '30s. Although it will be a different sort of depression.

We'll see investments regress 13-18 years (they're already well on their way -- I believe we're at '93-'96 levels now), and we're going to end up seeing runaway inflation at the rates of 23-25%, because of the trillions of dollars that this administration is pumping into the economy. Sure, we'll all have $250,000 in the bank, but we'll need that for a gallon of milk (admittedly, a hyperbole).

He squandered an amazing amount of political capitol getting extremely poor choices for his Cabinet confirmed.

In all, my opinion of Obama was lukewarm at best, with his asinine grandiose promises of "Change!" without any detail on how or what, and that has diminished significantly.

[Rudy]

I don't think the world changed its opinion on americans, but it did lose its respect for the USA. Now that respect is coming back. No matter what Obama does, this is the most important thing. The USA needs to be respected in the world. It's good for the balance of power.

If the rest of the world will respect us more simply because the president is different, without any regard to what the president actually does, then that respect isn't worth very much. Why would you respect anyone for simply being "different than the last guy"? I can understand why you would feel relief, but respect is earned through action.

[PeterIMC]

If the rest of the world will respect us more simply because the president is different, without any regard to what the president actually does, then that respect isn't worth very much. Why would you respect anyone for simply being "different than the last guy"? I can understand why you would feel relief, but respect is earned through action.

I understand your reply, but you have to realize that Bush was a complete joke in the eyes of the rest of the world. Obama did something that has a lot of value in the eyes of the rest of the world. He showed respect for reality and on top of that, the man seems to know what he's talking about.

As much as I would like to believe that respect is earned through action, the reality is that action means nothing without the right presentation.

I don't really believe that all the "social" stuff Obama is trying to implement is going to have that much result, but all the economic stuff he's doing is going to have a positive effect I believe. There's one thing he should not do and that is to do nothing.

A government can't turn the economy around. Luckily the economy will turn around on its own, it doesn't need anybody to make that happen. That's like a law of nature. But what a government does, does determine how painful the problem will be. And in that regard, I think Obama is doing no better or worse than a republican would do.

[Tragic Hero]

I'm curious. Has anyone changed their mind, either positively or negatively, from the opinion they held of him when he was elected?

I thought very poorly of him back then (not that his opponent was any better,)
Just out of curiosity, which politicians do you rate highly? I don't want this to be one of those "yeah, all politicians are rascalian scoundrels" responses; What would your prefered DEM v REP candidate race had looked like?

I would actually be interested in anyone's if they're willing.

[Rudy]

Just out of curiosity, which politicians do you rate highly? I don't want this to be one of those "yeah, all politicians are rascalian scoundrels" responses; What would your prefered DEM v REP candidate race had looked like?

Hmm... I really don't like anyone in either major party, but if I had to pick one of the primary candidates from the two parties, I'd probably say... John Edwards and... Rudy Giuliani. And not just because he has a great name.

My difficulty comes from the fact that I am an atheist who favors economic conservatism. Economically conservative candidates tend to get their religious values mixed up with their politics, which I don't like.

[Lycurgus]

Just out of curiosity, which politicians do you rate highly? I don't want this to be one of those "yeah, all politicians are rascalian scoundrels" responses; What would your prefered DEM v REP candidate race had looked like?

I would actually be interested in anyone's if they're willing.I'm Pro- any government official who votes;


against restricting rights
against expanding the deficit
to restrict the powers of the federal government,
to expand the powers of the state governments,
for the rights of speech, press, assembly, arms, etc.

On the other hand... my political alignment has me on the other end of the spectrum from any who vote for;


Expanded federal government
Restricted states rights
Programs without taxes to pay for them
Restricted individual rights


Is that fixed? Please don't tell me I got it backwards again!

Have you found many/any of those politicians in Washington, lately? Until you do, yea, all politicians are rascalian scoundrels. ;)

[Rudy]

I'm Pro- any government official who votes against restricting rights, votes against expanding the deficit, votes for increasing funding (of anything) without correlative taxes to pay for it, votes to expand the powers of the federal government, votes for restricting the powers of the state governments, votes for the rights of speech, press, assembly, arms, etc.
I hope that this is satirical...

[Lycurgus]

I hope that this is satirical...I got mixed up half way through, let me go back and try and fix it...

[Rudy]

Okay, now we're on the same page. ;)

[Holiman]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

None of these posts even come close to stating that relations have gotten worse as a matter of fact several state how things seem to be getting better thanks for backing up my argument though


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



This is an opinion not news


Also your questioning his IQ is every bit is unimportant as W. Bush comments you even admit this yourself so obviously your just baiting for argument.


As to his Socialism agenda its debatable but health care is out of control so is the economy his is one possible solution and I think everyone can agree Republicans have no answers for these problems.

Also Education the biggest initiative in the last 20 years was brought forth by President Bush and Congressman Kennedy, its not helped much its time for better since Education is a under goverment control by and large, and its failing.

[boldbidder]

Boldbidder, if you voted for Obama because of his "measured deliberate temperament and an unabashedly powerful intellect."; would you still have voted for him had he held McCain's ideological positions and McCain held Obama's ideological positions?

Well from an ideological standpoint there were really no issues that would've prevented from voting for a smart McCain other than his proposed foreign policy. Also, his warped idea that government funded scientific research somehow constitutes wasteful spending is nothing short of moronic. So if you alleviate those two things and the requisite amount of gray matter then he could've gotten my vote.

Oh yeah, but you'd have to 86 Palin from the ticket though.

[Feral]

Time will tell. I suppose he's doing the best he can right now with what was left to him, but he does seem to be throwing money around like crazy at this point. And we're supposed to halve the deficit by 2012? Riiiiiiiight.

I think he means well though, and I'm glad he's in the middle, and not completely married to one party or another. At least it seems that way from what he's doing.

I don't know. I care little for politics.
I find him somewhat interesting though.

[Rudy]

Oh yeah, but you'd have to 86 Palin from the ticket though.

That, at least, goes without saying.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

I think he means well though, and I'm glad he's in the middle, and not completely married to one party or another. At least it seems that way from what he's doing.

I'm not sure where you are getting this impression, but he's really not in the middle at all. I wouldn't say he's completely married to the democratic party, but about 90%. He is a democrat, after all.

[Feral]

I'm not sure where you are getting this impression, but he's really not in the middle at all. I wouldn't say he's completely married to the democratic party, but about 90%. He is a democrat, after all.


Eh, I figure being a democrat was more of a stance to just get elected than anything.
He is a politician, after all ;)

He definitely leans closer to that side of the road, but I don't consider him to be even close to the white line.

Yet.

[PeterIMC]

Time will tell. I suppose he's doing the best he can right now with what was left to him, but he does seem to be throwing money around like crazy at this point. And we're supposed to halve the deficit by 2012? Riiiiiiiight.

I think he means well though, and I'm glad he's in the middle, and not completely married to one party or another. At least it seems that way from what he's doing.

I don't know. I care little for politics.
I find him somewhat interesting though.

There is this commonly held but wrong assumption that if you want to reduce a dept, you simply have to spend less than you make. But that only applies to your household financials.

In case of a bigger organization, just reducing spending either works too slow or it doesn't work at all because usually when the balance is negative, it is caused more by a lack of income and not by overspending.

It is therefore better to invest in things that increase income.

Also, if the government invests in things that directly creates jobs it's not costing as much as it looks like. If they wouldn't do it, they would still have to pay all those people welfare or unemployment money. Those costs you have to take out of the investment and then you'll see they´re not actually investing that much.

The question with Obama is of course if the job creation he intends is actually going to happen.

[Prunesquallor]

He's obliged, now that he's in power, to represent not only the people who voted for him, but the people who didn't - the entire country, fundamentalist idiots and all. That's why I sort of dislike calling them campaign "promises" - campaigning really should be more about representing where you stand on issues, what you believe in, what you want to do, so people can pick the "vision" they want - but then reality sets in and you get a comprimise. And that second part nobody likes and they like to blame the guy for it.

That said, he inherited a real mess of an administration, and lord knows he's better than the alternative -- but he certainly could do better. I do hate his demagoguery, and I find he's overpraised - especially up here in Canada. Contrast value, you know, after that other guy...

[Tenacious B]

The Obama administration has performed as I anticipated, but I'm honestly surprised that he reached that point so quickly. At least Bush took time to get settled in before screwing things up.

I never expected Obama's economic actions to actually improve the situation, quite the opposite really, and that so far has been fulfilled.

His choices for cabinet positions have been sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. This is business as usual in Washington, which is not what he ran on.

His snubbing on Britain's PM was probably most surprising to me. For a candidate and a party that ran largely on improving relations with our allies and America's image around the world this was a major failure.

Overall I'd say his administration is amateurish, sloppy, overwhelmed, incompetent, and corrupt, which is exactly what I expected with him (actually a bit worse than expected). A far cry from the hope and change he was supposed to usher in.

[Feral]

The question with Obama is of course if the job creation he intends is actually going to happen.

Indeed.
There are reports now that jobs are opening up by the thousands, but this comes directly after the reports of even more people being laid off.

[The Irish Lands]

I think that he is quite a good president. I do not support his "stimmulous packages", but I like his agenda of peace - such as decreasing the amount on nuclear weapons - that might be an important milestone in making our World safer...

[Lycurgus]

The question with Obama is of course if the job creation he intends is actually going to happen.Even if it does happen, they're still spending 225,000 USD per job created, which are not permanent careers, but temporary employment.

[Wraenrde]

I'm impressed. He's delivering us to socialism way faster than I imagined possible. As for foreign policy, he's doing a tremendous job of offending our allies and encouraging our enemies. All in all, outstanding effort on O's part. Given his background as an attorney, I wasn't sure he could screw up by the numbers nearly so adroitly.

What is this "powerful intellect" everybody's prattling on about? He's running what, a 120, 125 IQ? Or is he considered smart because he has an advanced degree from an Ivy league school? Unlike his predecessor, who..um...oh, that's right, he had an Ivy MBA.

In all honesty, I'm pleased by his performance so far. Due to the magic of dollar-cost-averaging, this month I bought 4 shares of the market for every 3 I bought in January. What a bargain!
He's barely been in long enough to begin critiquing his performance and you're already set against him. I suggest you re-evaluate your opinion and influences on the subject as such a heavy bias only takes you away from the reality of a situation.

[phantasma]

It's remarkable how much he's getting done already with Gitmo and the stimulus package.

However, I don't approve of him as I don't approve of socialism, or the government expanding more than it has already. And even now, he isn't living up to his grandiose speeches. He either needs to step it down a notch in his speeches, and lose some of his popularity, or step it up several notches in his performance.

[boldbidder]

Even if it does happen, they're still spending 225,000 USD per job created, which are not permanent careers, but temporary employment.

What's wrong with that? I do a bit of consulting and every contract/statement of work has an end date. So for that 3,6,12,18 month period I know what my cash flow is like and I can work on securing future work to keep my pipeline fat. Having temporary work is better than no work.

On the jobs front I think the biggest issue that no one is talking about is that the 'skilled labor jobs' have pretty much dried up and they aren't coming back. Even if we create a bunch of 'green jobs' a lot of that stuff will be automated which removes people from the loop other than maintenance. The private sector shows little to no interest in creating jobs that don't require any qualifications/education other than willingness to work hard. So what should the Gubment (sorry was watching In Loving Color re-runs) do in that case, let the uneducated masses float up the creek or try to create short term work for them?

[Prunesquallor]

I just have to say, everyone who's calling him a socialist = you are so wonderfully hilarious and I appreciate it.

[Lycurgus]

What's wrong with that? I do a bit of consulting and every contract/statement of work has an end date. So for that 3,6,12,18 month period I know what my cash flow is like and I can work on securing future work to keep my pipeline fat. Having temporary work is better than no work. It's a ridiculous sum of money to employ individuals who are going to be making a fraction of that amount for a year or two at best.

On the jobs front I think the biggest issue that no one is talking about is that the 'skilled labor jobs' have pretty much dried up and they aren't coming back. Even if we create a bunch of 'green jobs' a lot of that stuff will be automated which removes people from the loop other than maintenance. The private sector shows little to no interest in creating jobs that don't require any qualifications/education other than willingness to work hard. So what should the Gubment (sorry was watching In Loving Color re-runs) do in that case, let the uneducated masses float up the creek or try to create short term work for them?And, it doesn't actually address the issue... like, you know, the ones you just mentioned?


"Lets see, this here damn seems like it's breaking. What should we do?"
"LETS STICK CAULK IT!"
"Mmmmmk, that'll work!"

[Henry]

I'm impressed. He's delivering us to socialism way faster than I imagined possible. As for foreign policy, he's doing a tremendous job of offending our allies and encouraging our enemies. All in all, outstanding effort on O's part. Given his background as an attorney, I wasn't sure he could screw up by the numbers nearly so adroitly.

What is this "powerful intellect" everybody's prattling on about? He's running what, a 120, 125 IQ? Or is he considered smart because he has an advanced degree from an Ivy league school? Unlike his predecessor, who..um...oh, that's right, he had an Ivy MBA.

In all honesty, I'm pleased by his performance so far. Due to the magic of dollar-cost-averaging, this month I bought 4 shares of the market for every 3 I bought in January. What a bargain!

First of all, when you gripe about both a flagging economy and attempts to stimulate aggregate demand, you're setting up a circumstance where its impossible for anyone to succeed. You can gripe about one or the other, but not both.

Secondly, very little of what he's doing qualified as socialism. Most of it is standard interventionism the likes of which the Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Regan administrations practiced only on a larger scale to deal with a much larger problem. He's eventually going to do what the rest of the developed world has done with medicine and - oh the terror - cut our health care spending in half to bring it in line with the rest of the developed world.

Thirdly, I'd like you to name a single ally that's been significantly "discouraged" by Obama's willingness to actually - gasp - talk to evildoers. Because the ones I'm aware of have almost universally breathed a sigh of release since that fucking moron left office. The UK? Germany? France? Japan? Korea? Poland? Anyone in Nato? Oh, ok the Saudis, yeah they're probably "discouraged".

Fourthly, I'd like you to name a significant "enemy" that's made progress on a substantive issue in the 45 days he's been in office. Russia? Nope, that was under Bush. China? Nope, that was under Bush. Iran? Nope, that was under Bush. Bin Laden? He's only still alive because that fucking retard started a colonial venture in the middle of a legitimate conflict.

Fifth, blaming Obama for the stock market is hogwash. Blaming him for the stock market after 45 days in office is a complete joke.

Lastly, in a post this full of fail, I'd be seriously careful about questioning anyone's IQ.

Russia:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(hint: this means that they think we can do it, and know that they can't)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (this will be interesting to watch unfold. our advantage in the START treaty was our technological advantage: we can keep more warheads in the air at any given time than the russians, who were limited to MIRV's in each ICBM. Every plane counts as 1 warhead)

Poland:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Poland has been a NATO ally since 1999, 10 years after the collapse of Soviet Russian power. Wonder if they're having trouble stomaching their pierogi right about now....)

Iran:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (gosh, i thought the problem was our unwillingness to hold an international rap session....now it turns out that Iran actually hates us.)

Syria:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (oh, good. we all agree that iran isn't nearly as much a problem as israel)

Israel:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a joke - the Russians want arms reductions and you reference this as a negative? We somehow need to maintain a massive numerical nuclear advantage even though we posses legitimate first-strike capability and they don't? Isreal is an important ally? Two mid-low level officials talking to Syria somehow detracts from action on Iran, where the Obama administration has been working with Russia, China, and Turkey on Iran-related issues?

Even if it does happen, they're still spending 225,000 USD per job created, which are not permanent careers, but temporary employment.

Source?

[Bobert]

I voted for Obama, and would do it again. At least he can speak English.

Bush was a poor president for the people. He had the worst rating for any president ever.
He denied the ecomony was in recession until @November.
He actively prevented any release of Global Warming trend data.
He allowed bin Ladens family to leave the country during the Sept. 11 no-fly period, instead of holding them for questioning. Etc.
Got off subject there.

Obama has done much of what he said he was going to do, instead of ignoring it.
Is it his job to fix the economy? No, not directly, except under extenuating circumstances, which the economy is in now. I believe he is doing what he can to stave off a depression.
Rudy may not agree with what he's doing about the economy, but unlike Bush, Obama does not deny obvious national problems. The DJIA is not Obama's national confidence scale.

If nothing else, Obama has, intentionally or not, re-invigorated the nations' interest in government.

So Rudy, what would you do as President to help the economy recover?

[Lycurgus]

Source?Math?

[Henry]

Math?

Nice post. Adds a lot to the discussion. Except I don't know exactly which stimulus figure you're using, and I don't know what jobs number you're using. "Because I did math" says nothing; if you don't post the numbers you can skew them in your direction. So yeah, source?

[Lycurgus]

Nice post. Adds a lot to the discussion. Except I don't know exactly which stimulus figure you're using, and I don't know what jobs number you're using. "Because I did math" says nothing; if you don't post the numbers you can skew them in your direction. So yeah, source?I took the big number and divided by the small number.

No, the number isn't holy accurate because for each job created there's an associated Bureaucracy and "real expenditures," which are in turn still stimulative, however my point being is that 3.5 million jobs, at 10 million lost jobs, and another 3 million people coming into the job market in the next year, it's still going to be a piece of ineffective legislation.

[Rudy]

So Rudy, what would you do as President to help the economy recover?
Leave it alone. The economy will recover in time. Further federal intervention only exacerbates the problem, and leaves our debt inconceivably worse.

Part of the problem here is the widespread misconception that the economy is somehow beholden to the government, or that the government can fix anything that's wrong with it. The only thing the government can do with most economic problems is make them worse.

[Henry]

I took the big number and divided by the small number.

No, the number isn't holy accurate because for each job created there's an associated Bureaucracy and "real expenditures," which are in turn still stimulative, however my point being is that 3.5 million jobs, at 10 million lost jobs, and another 3 million people coming into the job market in the next year, it's still going to be a piece of ineffective legislation.

1. You're not willing to provide the numbers you used. There are a half a dozen different stimulus numbers you could be using.

+1

2. You're admitting that you're skewing the numbers

+1

[Lycurgus]

1. You're not willing to provide the numbers you used. There are a half a dozen different stimulus numbers you could be using.

+1... You can look up any of the numbers you want. In fact, you do have two of them (3.5 million jobs, 250k per job). Incase you're unable to do that math; Here you go (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*+250000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

2. You're admitting that you're skewing the numbers

+1I'm admitting I'm simplifying the issue, however my point remains... which you've left unrefuted.
[M]y point being is that 3.5 million jobs, at 10 million lost jobs, and another 3 million people coming into the job market in the next year, it's still going to be a piece of ineffective legislation.

Leave it alone. The economy will recover in time. Further federal intervention only exacerbates the problem, and leaves our debt inconceivably worse.

Part of the problem here is the widespread misconception that the economy is somehow beholden to the government, or that the government can fix anything that's wrong with it. The only thing the government can do with most economic problems is make them worse.Couldn't agree more.

[Henry]

... You can look up any of the numbers you want. In fact, you do have two of them (3.5 million jobs, 250k per job). Incase you're unable to do that math; Here you go (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*+250000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).


3.5 million jobs? Says who? I've seen figures a lot higher than that. 875 billion dollar stimulus package? Might want to check you figures, because the bill that was actually enacted was more like 790 billion, and a significant portion of this went to maintain state spending at pre-recession levels which can't be described as "simulus".


I'm admitting I'm simplifying the issue, however my point remains... which you've left unrefuted.

You haven't made a single credible point yet. You've pulled a lot of numbers straight out of your ass, and stated that because the labor supply will increase by 3,000,000 next year (which is an extreme improbability) on top of 10,000,000 jobs already lost (another huge factual inaccuracy) the government no steps should be taken to create jobs.

So what exactly am I supposed to refute? The factually inaccurate numbers, the ones pulled straight from your rectum, or the foregone conclusion you draw from your fantasy math?

[Lycurgus]

3.5 million jobs? Says who? I've seen figures a lot higher than that. 875 billion dollar stimulus package? Might want to check you figures, because the bill that was actually enacted was more like 790 billion, and a significant portion of this went to maintain state spending at pre-recession levels which can't be described as "simulus".




You haven't made a single credible point yet. You've pulled a lot of numbers straight out of your ass, and stated that because the labor supply will increase by 3,000,000 next year (which is an extreme improbability) on top of 10,000,000 jobs already lost (another huge factual inaccuracy) the government no steps should be taken to create jobs.

So what exactly am I supposed to refute? The factually inaccurate numbers, the ones pulled straight from your rectum, or the foregone conclusion you draw from your fantasy math?Great Ad hom attacks.

I believe those are typically employed when you have no refutation of the presented arguments, right?

[LaoTzu]

Rudy: Obama HAS to go out and about to visit and network etc... make personal connections. I think it's probably one of the fundamentals of the position... To be the face of America to the world's leaders. I haven't heard about the Brit 'snub' ... I'd like to say that's because it didn't matter, but I'll withhold judgement until I look it up.

I agree that the Cabinet issues are a bit of a drag, and should have been handled better. I'm not sure about patronage, seems everyone in a position to run something in Washington has benefited from some kind of patronage to get there anyway.

As for the idea that Obama is bringing 'Socialism' to the USA.... wow... that is a joke... I don't consider Canada to be Socialist, we just give a damn about each other. I think that the Neo-Cons have skewed public opinion so badly as to what the role of government really IS. In fact, I confidently say that Neo-Con economics WERE socialist, in that they gave public funds to corporations and private business like it was free.

Fact is: the US needs to stop for a few, and consider what exactly government is supposed to be there for. IMO it's a contract of the people to publicly support not just the needs of State, but the needs of All. (And yes, you can have Capitalism in the face of that).
I think most people believe that too... the Con's greatest trick thus far is to convince people that Government is 'Bad'. And then they turn and call others 'unpatriotic' ? LOL!!!! Fact is, Con's have been calling the shots since Regan, and the ultimate goal is to completely derail anything having to do with Government and hand their role over to the private sector.

I honestly think that every so often, you need to simply erase the past, and start fresh.
Since that's not really possible, 'Change' is the next best thing...

[Henry]

Great Ad hom attacks.

I believe those are typically employed when you have no refutation of the presented arguments, right?


I noted two significant, factually inaccurate statements you made. Since this isn't clear: we haven't lost 10,000,000 jobs, and the stimulus is not anywhere near 875 billion.

I also noted one number you used that's an absurd improbability. And two numbers that have zero support. And a ridiculous "I'm so fat that I shouldn't bother to diet" abstract argument derived from one of your factual inaccuracies and an extreme improbability.

Is crying about "ad hom" attacks (after you refer me to a calculator when I ask for a source) the only way to respond to having your argument mauled?

[Rudy]

Rudy: Obama HAS to go out and about to visit and network etc... make personal connections. I think it's probably one of the fundamentals of the position... To be the face of America to the world's leaders. I haven't heard about the Brit 'snub' ... I'd like to say that's because it didn't matter, but I'll withhold judgement until I look it up.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fact is: the US needs to stop for a few, and consider what exactly government is supposed to be there for. IMO it's a contract of the people to publicly support not just the needs of State, but the needs of All. (And yes, you can have Capitalism in the face of that).
The "IMO" is the important part here. You sometimes talk as if it were obvious to all that the government was some sort of beneficial entity, whose purpose was to provide happiness to everyone. Fact is, there are a lot of people, especially in America, who do not see this as the role of government. Many of us see government as a necessary evil, that needs to be kept in line as much as possible.

You should understand that this is largely a matter of cultural perspective. Not everyone likes big government like you, and many value independence and self-reliance above being provided by things from the state.

[LaoTzu]

Actually, its not 'big government' that I'm liking...It's that government is 'us'.

What I said is: that the role of government should be examined and redefined. (How it's defined is not my concern, just that the will of the people is considered).

I hold the idealized concept that government should be viewed as a holder of community resources, to be used to the benefit of the community, as the community dictates.

I don't think the status quo is anywhere near that ideal. In fact, I believe Conservatism of the last 30 years has seen to it that Government is as weak as possible. (in the US).
What I have seen in the last 30 years, is conservatives using public funds to back private interests... that's the biggest government there is...To think you are against Socialism, but allow for publicly subsidized, privately profitable?.... its a little disingenuous.



Government isn't there to provide 'happiness' IMO. And at times it is anything BUT beneficial. However, as long as it's making strides towards being beneficial, I'd be content. I can't 'hate' my government, because my government is 'me'.

[Rudy]

In fact, I believe Conservatism of the last 30 years has seen to it that Government is as weak as possible. (in the US).
What I have seen in the last 30 years, is conservatives using public funds to back private interests... that's the biggest government there is...To think you are against Socialism, but allow for publicly subsidized, privately profitable?.... its a little disingenuous.

Don't think that I'm for the "Conservative" ideology. I'm for minimal government, and I recognize that modern day "Conservatism" often is not.

[LaoTzu]

Ok, well...what IS minimal government?

My perception is that everything would be private sector...


Just read up on the 'Gaffe'....

Petty...

[Rudy]

Just read up on the 'Gaffe'....

Petty...
I recognize that it isn't a major deal, and it's probably the smallest complaint I have against him, but it's still embarrassing. *shrug* I want to go out and apologize to the British...

[LaoTzu]

I recognize that it isn't a major deal, and it's probably the smallest complaint I have against him, but it's still embarrassing. *shrug* I want to go out and apologize to the British...

I can understand it looks 'cheap'...

But I'd prefer the DVD's to the pen-holder :)

[Rudy]

Ok, well...what IS minimal government?

My perception is that everything would be private sector...

Well, I'm not a libertarian, and don't support complete privatization. "Minimal" government was a poor word choice on my part, as there are a number of things I want government to do that are not strictly necessary. I can't really align my views with any given word; basically I want government to do that which it is more efficient for government to do. I want government to do: national health care, roads, education (at least to pay for it, if not manage it,) military, courts and law enforcement, to name a few things. I do not want government to do welfare and social security, to give two examples, because these do not maximize efficiency.

[LaoTzu]

I want government to do: national health care, roads, education (at least to pay for it, if not manage it,) military, courts and law enforcement, to name a few things. I do not want government to do welfare and social security, to give two examples, because these do not maximize efficiency.

All right. So we aren't that far off. I'm basically talking about the same things.
However, in some circles; they'd be calling YOU a Socialist too.

I'll allow that if universal healthcare doesn't get a fair shake under Obama, I'd consider his presidency a failure.

[Rudy]

However, in some circles; they'd be calling YOU a Socialist too.

If you'll review my posts, I don't think I was one of the people throwing the word socialist around like an insult, but I'll have to check. I avoid using the word, because its meaning is so vague.

[LaoTzu]

Sorry, years of listening to conservatives call just about everything and everyone with views like mine socialists...it kind of a knee-jerk reaction :P

Thats why I was saying that government's role should be reexamined. A lot of stagnation in government policy is caused by having to tip-toe around the 'labels' that one might get by supporting certain policies... and the needs of the people are largely ignored during those times.

[Rudy]

Sorry, years of listening to conservatives call just about everything and everyone with views like mine socialists...it kind of a knee-jerk reaction :P
Understandable.

That's why I was saying that government's role should be reexamined. A lot of stagnation in government policy is caused by having to tip-toe around the 'labels' that one might get by supporting certain policies... and the needs of the people are largely ignored during those times.
Fair enough. I was only upset because it seemed to me that you were implying that a government more concerned with satisfying people's needs was obviously what everyone wanted. If I misinterpreted you, "my bad."

[wise]

I just have to say, everyone who's calling him a socialist = you are so wonderfully hilarious and I appreciate it.

So, what is a socialist? I mean, if he isn't socialist, what is he? He doesn't claim to be liberal. He certainly isn't libertarian or conservative. Green in and of itself, in my opinion shouldn't count, as it is really contained to some degree in all of the others. Is he communist then? Please clarify what is hilarious about calling him socialist, if you will.

[Lucid]

So, what is a socialist? I mean, if he isn't socialist, what is he? He doesn't claim to be liberal. He certainly isn't libertarian or conservative. Green in and of itself, in my opinion shouldn't count, as it is really contained to some degree in all of the others. Is he communist then? Please clarify what is hilarious about calling him socialist, if you will.

You should look up socialism. And you should study most European governments. Even the most 'socialist' of Obama's policies and ideas are nothing in comparison.

[Henry]

So, what is a socialist? I mean, if he isn't socialist, what is he? He doesn't claim to be liberal. He certainly isn't libertarian or conservative. Green in and of itself, in my opinion shouldn't count, as it is really contained to some degree in all of the others. Is he communist then? Please clarify what is hilarious about calling him socialist, if you will.

Libertarian - Conservative - Interventionist - Keynesian - Socialism - Leninism - Stalinism

Obama is probably somewhere between an interventionist and a Keynesian. Bush was also an interventionist, Regan was an interventionist, and Clinton was an interventionist. Socialism is state control of many industries with government fixing prices in many others, typically with enormous progressive and passive-income taxation. Socialism typically also will erode property rights, especially in the upper middle and upper classes. Hugo Chavez is a socialist, Obama is an interventionist.

You should look up socialism. And you should study most European governments. Even the most 'socialist' of Obama's policies and ideas are nothing in comparison.

I don't know that most Western European nations are socialist. Socialism, IMO, is about redistributing property and eroding property rights (communism being about redistributing property through eliminating property rights), not about intervening in markets to preserve function or about moderately progressive taxation/welfare policies.

[PeterIMC]

Even if it does happen, they're still spending 225,000 USD per job created, which are not permanent careers, but temporary employment.

Could be, but you need to look further than just that single statistic. First of all, the more people that work, the less deep this recession will be (and it still will be very deep) and besides that, jobs can indirectly create the need for other jobs.

These things are never completely predictable nor can you later exactly determine how effective the investment was. But I think we can all agree that doing nothing is worse.

[Henry]

Could be, but you need to look further than just that single statistic. First of all, the more people that work, the less deep this recession will be (and it still will be very deep) and besides that, jobs can indirectly create the need for other jobs.

These things are never completely predictable nor can you later exactly determine how effective the investment was. But I think we can all agree that doing nothing is worse.

His numbers are wrong, he's ignoring multiplier effects, he doesn't account for the fact that most of the "stimulus" was actually federal grants to states to preserve spending to pre-recession levels.

[PeterIMC]

It's remarkable how much he's getting done already with Gitmo and the stimulus package.

However, I don't approve of him as I don't approve of socialism, or the government expanding more than it has already. And even now, he isn't living up to his grandiose speeches. He either needs to step it down a notch in his speeches, and lose some of his popularity, or step it up several notches in his performance.

You don't approve of socialism?

What exactly is socialism in your opinion? A lot of social laws are actually great for capitalism. If you lose your job for example, the government will help you for a couple of month (actually you pay for that security through social security taxes of course). Social laws are very beneficial for keeping the economy going.

Even the police is a social thing because it simply means everybody together paying for security.

So I wonder what exactly socialism is in your opinion.

[Rudy]

So I wonder what exactly socialism is in your opinion.

Usually, when people refer to socialism, there is an element of wealth redistribution. Social security and welfare, for example, are generally considered "socialism".

[Tragic Hero]

Libertarian - Conservative - Interventionist - Keynesian - Socialism - Leninism - Stalinism



Did you get that from a website? I wouldn't mind having a look at that.
Also, sorry to be a nitpicker but it is Ronald Reagan. The fact that you did it twice lets me think it isn't a typo.

[Lycurgus]

I noted two significant, factually inaccurate statements you made. Since this isn't clear: we haven't lost 10,000,000 jobs, and the stimulus is not anywhere near 875 billion.No, we haven't yet lost 10,000,000 jobs. Nor did I say we have. You're the one who's ascribed a date to my statements, all my my statements were made in line with the end of 2010, the way the Stimulus bill was written to take effect.

Allow me to grab my original statement.

[M]y point being is that 3.5 million jobs, at 10 million lost jobs, and another 3 million people coming into the job market in the next year, it's still going to be a piece of ineffective legislation.
Admittedly, my mixing of tenses was incorrect, and my statement next year should've been "over the next year".

However, my point, being that the 10 million jobs lost [by the end of 2010], and the 3.5 million jobs created [by the end of 2010] are not equal amounts, especially when weighed against the influx of unskilled labor which will be entering the market. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket and does nothing to actually help.

The legislation is incorrectly trying to address a problem that doesn't exist. The market is self correcting, and was falsely inflated due to an easy supply of money.

I also noted one number you used that's an absurd improbability. And two numbers that have zero support. And a ridiculous "I'm so fat that I shouldn't bother to diet" abstract argument derived from one of your factual inaccuracies and an extreme improbability. Neither has zero support, and neither is an improbability.

They're rounded. You round from 248,xxx, to 250k for the sake of simplicity, and 790 becomes 850 through rounded math. They didn't teach you rounding in fourth grade?

Is crying about "ad hom" attacks (after you refer me to a calculator when I ask for a source) the only way to respond to having your argument mauled?My argument still hasn't been "mauled," as you so ineloquently put it

[Solus]

Libertarian - Conservative - Interventionist - Keynesian - Socialism - Leninism - Stalinism

Obama is probably somewhere between an interventionist and a Keynesian. Bush was also an interventionist, Regan was an interventionist, and Clinton was an interventionist. Socialism is state control of many industries with government fixing prices in many others, typically with enormous progressive and passive-income taxation. Socialism typically also will erode property rights, especially in the upper middle and upper classes. Hugo Chavez is a socialist, Obama is an interventionist.

I don't have problem with this definition but from my experience this is how socialism is usually defined by the Americans. It bears many similarities to how the word was used in the former eastern bloc countries. Most Europeans today would call this communism and not socialism. Socialism in Europe means having a market economy which is regulated in the areas whose operation, if left unregulated, would have a negative impact on the society as the whole + programs to maintain social cohesion. Apart from utility companies state controlled industries here are rarity. WIth regard to government fixing prices, I can't think of a sector where this is the case.


I don't know that most Western European nations are socialist. Socialism, IMO, is about redistributing property and eroding property rights (communism being about redistributing property through eliminating property rights), not about intervening in markets to preserve function or about moderately progressive taxation/welfare policies.

Several years ago most of the countries happened to have left or left-centre governments. Things have change and will change again but in reality this is of secondary importance. The government may be socialist, social-democratic, Christian/conservative, liberal, green etc, but in most European countries a consensus will be attempted between the government, the employers' associations and the trade unions as to the long-term decisions that need to be taken. That is why you can have "big coalitions" in the times of crisis or a "minority government" (ie the cabinet consists of a party/parties which don't command majority in the parliament).

The US has a two party political model which is an exception in Europe (the UK, Malta) and that makes the above situations where several different options have to reach a consensus very difficult. Also, the economic philosophy and general mentality differ considerably between Europe and the US. Universal health care is a dogma here whereas in the US it's a taboo.

[maxpot46]

Usually, when people refer to socialism, there is an element of wealth redistribution. Social security and welfare, for example, are generally considered "socialism".Socialism is defined as an economic system characterized by public ownership of property (no private ownership) and centrally-planned distribution of resources (no market). It is the polar opposite of capitalism -- the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the middle, there is interventionism of varying degrees. There are few pure socialists anymore, or at least who will 'fess up to it, but interventionism keeps pushing closer to that extreme.

[Henry]

This is another post that's so full of fail I don't know where to begin.

No, we haven't yet lost 10,000,000 jobs. Nor did I say we have. You're the one who's ascribed a date to my statements, all my my statements were made in line with the end of 2010, the way the Stimulus bill was written to take effect.

Says *who*? You keep dropping numbers from the sky. These mean nothing. The use of "references" or "sources" generally adds to credibility.

Allow me to grab my original statement.


Admittedly, my mixing of tenses was incorrect, and my statement next year should've been "over the next year".

"Allow me to modify my original argument"

However, my point, being that the 10 million jobs lost [by the end of 2010], and the 3.5 million jobs created [by the end of 2010] are not equal amounts, especially when weighed against the influx of unskilled labor which will be entering the market. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket and does nothing to actually help.

This post is full of unquestioned assumptions and references to projections with no source. Who says that 10 million jobs will be lost? Who says that the stimulus will create only 3.5 million new jobs? Who says that 3 million new unskilled workers will participate in the labor force? I've already shown that one of your "facts" was a complete falsification, don't expect us to take your numbers at face value.

Additionally, this "drop in the bucket" argument is asinine. Its an "I'm getting fat, therefore I shouldn't work out" argument.


The legislation is incorrectly trying to address a problem that doesn't exist.

The goal of the stimulus is to create jobs. You're saying that unemployment isn't a problem?

The market is self correcting, and was falsely inflated due to an easy supply of money.

The market is in outright failure. See the treasury-Libor/AAA yield spread.

Neither has zero support, and neither is an improbability.

You have yet to provide a reference for either, hence they have zero support, and 3 million new unskilled workers participating in the labor force is an extreme improbability.

They're rounded. You round from 248,xxx, to 250k for the sake of simplicity, and 790 becomes 850 through rounded math. They didn't teach you rounding in fourth grade?

790 does not round to 850. It might round to 800, it doesn't round to 850. Another attempt to distort facts.

My argument still hasn't been "mauled," as you so ineloquently put it

Yeah it has. For one, you've changed...clarified your argument. For two, you still haven't provided a single source for any of your statements. For three, you round 789 (which is not an accurate reflection of "stimulus" anyways) to 850 to make your point. Fourth, you are ignoring multiplier effects of an increase in spending. Five, your abstract argument is "I'm so fat that I shouldn't diet." Six, you're distorting significant facts and distorting your original argument in a fail attempt to save face.

[PeterIMC]

Socialism is defined as an economic system characterized by public ownership of property (no private ownership) and centrally-planned distribution of resources (no market). It is the polar opposite of capitalism -- the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the middle, there is interventionism of varying degrees. There are few pure socialists anymore, or at least who will 'fess up to it, but interventionism keeps pushing closer to that extreme.

That sounds more like communism to me, so I looked up the official definition and I guess you´re right. But to me (european) socialism isn't going that far.

I know one thing though, capitalism doesn't work without social laws. Social laws have a stabilizing effect which prevents capitalism from going out of control. That this is true is painfully obvious considering the previous USA government reducing regulation to a point where capitalistic methods were left to go wild.

Not saying that the whole crisis is to blame on the previous government, but they certainly didn't do anything to prevent it. And I know that the left wing in the USA also had part in creating the crisis.

Considering your definition of socialism is correct, I will right away say that Obama is not a socialist. He's just like every other average person with a preference for a government that takes responsibility for those tasks that aren't considered very profitable.

[Lycurgus]

This is another post that's so full of fail I don't know where to begin.More ad hom attacks. That'll convince!

Says *who*? You keep dropping numbers from the sky. These mean nothing. The use of "references" or "sources" generally adds to credibility.I'm sorry, I thought you actually read up on the topic before beginning to discuss.

"Allow me to modify my original argument"Yes, you've changed my wording entirely, when, in fact, it should be patently obvious to anyone who's read up on the subject that, despite my grammatical misrepresentation and leaving out of a prepositional phrase (grammar was never my strong suit, correct term?) due to not being able to type as well as I typically can, since I have a casted finger, I was referring to 2010.

This post is full of unquestioned assumptions and references to projections with no source. I'm sorry, perhaps you've not actually read up on the subject. I'll leave you to do so, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Who says that 10 million jobs will be lost? Who says that the stimulus will create only 3.5 million new jobs? ... The White House Press releases (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the subject.

Who says that 3 million new unskilled workers will participate in the labor force? What else do you propose they do? Take an extended vacation?

I've already shown that one of your "facts" was a complete falsification, don't expect us to take your numbers at face value.No, you haven't. You pointed out an error in multiplicative rounding, which I said was an error.

Additionally, this "drop in the bucket" argument is asinine. Its an "I'm getting fat, therefore I shouldn't work out" argument. Actually, it's more like "I'm gaining weight, I should probably not bother getting a nose job." That is, if you insist on using inaccurate, non-representative analogies which serve only to cloud an already complex issue which you, apparently, haven't read up on.

The goal of the stimulus is to create jobs. You're saying that unemployment isn't a problem?I'm saying that the stimulus isn't the correct solution.

790 does not round to 850. It might round to 800, it doesn't round to 850. Another attempt to distort facts.Actually, like I said before, it was a rounding of 74x,xxx to 750k, which, when multiplied by 3 million tends to have a cumulative effect. The point was not to showcase the total cost of the bailout, but to showcase the perceived benefit for each individual job.

For one, you've changed...clarified your argument.I'll refer you back to my original statement, in that it should've been perfectly obvious to anyone who's read up on the subject what I was referring to. Much like had I mentioned "The space shuttle launch," while discussing it in a denny's in Ontario, I wasn't referring to them launching it from the roof.

For two, you still haven't provided a single source for any of your statements. FOR TWO! :laugh:
I shouldn't need to, frankly. Anyone who's kept up with the news should know that the conservative estimates put the cost of the stimulus at 190k per job (rather, 187k, since rounding is a no-no for you), and the higher numbers as much as 312k.

For three, you round 789 (which is not an accurate reflection of "stimulus" anyways) to 850 to make your point. *cough* You're beginning to sound like a broken record. You do realize that you've already said this in this post, and by repeating yourself you simply look like you have alzheimer's?

Fourth, you are ignoring multiplier effects of an increase in spending. Which is ironic, because you're ignoring the multiplier effects of rounding.

And no, I'm not ignoring the multiplier effects. I'm thinking of them quite well, in that it takes far longer to pay off said debt, and since we have an already exploding deficit, and are past our scalps in debt, perhaps we should try to avoid putting our great great great grandkids into debt for a token gesture.
Five, your abstract argument is "I'm so fat that I shouldn't diet." Not even close, but thanks for trying.

Six, you're distorting significant facts and distorting your original argument in a fail attempt to save face.Didn't you just say that in point 1? Albeit in a slightly less condescending and ignorant fashion.

I'll refer you to the answer to one. Frankly, if you want to continue this discussion, you're going to have to bring something more to the table than insults, "nu uh!" and "omgz u rounded rong!" I don't have the time or the inclination to repeat myself with a sore, broken hand.

[Delarge]

Obama's a bank-sponsored charlatan whose incompetence will permanently damage the United States dollar and the economy.

[PeterIMC]

Obama's a bank-sponsored charlatan whose incompetence will permanently damage the United States dollar and the economy.

Sponsored by big businesses you mean? That almost sounds like he's a republican.... :)

[Delarge]

I agree with boldbidder on all points, and would just like to add that I think the right wingers out there are getting really pathetic...

Fact is, the economy was destroyed by the Neo-Cons. They are desperately trying to pass the buck...I mean... nobody expected Obama to 'fix' everything in the first 100days... that is, nobody but cynical right wingers :P

The Bush administration's contribution to the current disaster is negligible in comparison to Greenspan, the former Wizard of Bubbleland. It's also important to note that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999.





Delarge added to this post, 1 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Sponsored by big businesses you mean? That almost sounds like he's a republican.... :)

Unfortunately there no longer exist very many distinguishing characteristics between the two factions.

[PeterIMC]

Unfortunately there no longer exist very many distinguishing characteristics between the two factions.

Then I guess that Obama has reached one goal already. :)





PeterIMC added to this post, 1 minutes and 39 seconds later...

The Bush administration's contribution to the current disaster is negligible in comparison to Greenspan, the former Wizard of Bubbleland. It's also important to note that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999.

Don't you think that Greenspan's decisions are very politically pushed by who ever is in charge in the whitehouse?

[Delarge]

Then I guess that Obama has reached one goal already. :)





PeterIMC added to this post, 1 minutes and 39 seconds later...



Don't you think that Greenspan's decisions are very politically pushed by who ever is in charge in the whitehouse?

Only to a limited extent. Greenspan's policy of suppressing interest-rates to dangerously low levels was rather consistent throughout his tenure.

[PeterIMC]

Only to a limited extent. Greenspan's policy of suppressing interest-rates to dangerously low levels was rather consistent throughout his tenure.

He is a republican, isn't he? I mean, that wasn't a "socialist" agenda that he was pushing. He really believed that pushing the economy every time harder was exactly the right thing to do.

I bet that Bush hates the fact that this crises couldn't have been pushed forward just a couple of months more. Then it wouldn't have happened during his presidency. Obama has all the excuses in the world for doing what he's doing now (not claiming I agree or disagree with what he's doing).

I heard today that Obama predicted that the american economy will grow 4% in 2010. I wouldn't even be surprised if that really happens. Things are going down so fast now, that recovery probably will also be fast.

[Delarge]

He is a republican, isn't he? I mean, that wasn't a "socialist" agenda that he was pushing. He really believed that pushing the economy every time harder was exactly the right thing to do.

I bet that Bush hates the fact that this crises couldn't have been pushed forward just a couple of months more. Then it wouldn't have happened during his presidency. Obama has all the excuses in the world for doing what he's doing now (not claiming I agree or disagree with what he's doing).

I heard today that Obama predicted that the american economy will grow 4% in 2010. I wouldn't even be surprised if that really happens. Things are going down so fast now, that recovery probably will also be fast.

It's quite true that Greenspan is an ideologue, however by no means do his views even remotely align with those of recent Presidents. He considers himself to be an Objectivist (which at this point is debatable), and essentially shares Ron Paul's definition of the word "Republican".

As for economic recovery, I would refrain from adopting an optimistic outlook. The derivatives-bubble is still very much in the process of collapsing and as a consequence banks continue to incur substantial losses. Expect protracted deflationary-pressure, production-reduction, job losses, foreclosures, bank insolvencies, and political instability.

Once things do bottom-out, severe inflationary-pressure is likely to occur as a result of excessive "quantitative monetary easing" (AKA money-creation), and major supply shortages.

[maxpot46]

I know one thing though, capitalism doesn't work without social laws. Social laws have a stabilizing effect which prevents capitalism from going out of control. That this is true is painfully obvious considering the previous USA government reducing regulation to a point where capitalistic methods were left to go wild.I don't agree with this view. It was not any "wild capitalist method" that led to the problem, which was caused by the Fed policy of credit expansion. It was the "lack of regulation" that caused the problem to manifest so strongly in the housing market, but it would have manifested somewhere else if the regulation had been airtight.Considering your definition of socialism is correct, I will right away say that Obama is not a socialist. He's just like every other average person with a preference for a government that takes responsibility for those tasks that aren't considered very profitable.Since no one confesses to being socialist anymore, and most socialist politicians have learned the value of paying lip service to the market (though their actions belie them), IMO it's acceptable to use the term "socialist" in a colloquial fashion to mean "preference for centrally-planned solutions as opposed to market-based solutions" and/or "falling closer to the socialist end of the interventionist spectrum". I think most people understand this when the term is used conversationally and it's splitting hairs to insist that he's not technically a socialist (which in Obama's case, as with many others, seems to be more a matter of pragmatism than any perceived flaws with socialism).

[Solus]

Since no one confesses to being socialist anymore, and most socialist politicians have learned the value of paying lip service to the market (though their actions belie them), IMO it's acceptable to use the term "socialist" in a colloquial fashion to mean "preference for centrally-planned solutions as opposed to market-based solutions" and/or "falling closer to the socialist end of the interventionist spectrum". I think most people understand this when the term is used conversationally and it's splitting hairs to insist that he's not technically a socialist (which in Obama's case, as with many others, seems to be more a matter of pragmatism than any perceived flaws with socialism).

I take it you're refering to the US because there is a number of socialist and social-democratic parties in Europe (the second largest political group in the European Parliament) and an equally impressive number of socialist politicians. As I've never heard of any post-WWII high-ranking American politican (certainly not president) describing himself/herself as socialist could you provide a few examples? I'm asking because you are implying that there have been such politicians. I have always thought that calling oneself a socialist would be equal to a political suicide in the US.

[maxpot46]

I take it you're refering to the US because there is a number of socialist and social-democratic parties in Europe (the second largest political group in the European Parliament) and an equally impressive number of socialist politicians. Yes, I'm referring to the US.As I've never heard of any post-WWII high-ranking American politican (certainly not president) describing himself/herself as socialist could you provide a few examples? I'm asking because you are implying that there have been such politicians. I have always thought that calling oneself a socialist would be equal to a political suicide in the US.I didn't imply that. I said no one calls himself a socialist anymore -- the post-WWII thing is your own conception. Ever since Keynes, interventionism has been preferred because it preserves the veneer of capitalism yet retains the reality of state control.

[jhbowden79]

I initially wondered if Obama would be a pragmatist (a postmodern way of calling someone unprincipled) or a committed socialist.

It turns out we get both.

At least old-school progressives wasted our money in big, creative ways-- for example, sending men to the moon. These corporate welfare Porkulus packages are like death by a thousand paper cuts.

Yeah, Barack Hussein Obama is a piece of crap -- giving a billion dollars to Hamas so they can build holy missiles, restructuring our markets into a command economy -- Bush will look like a genius before this is all over.

[Henry]

More ad hom attacks. That'll convince!

I'm sorry, I thought you actually read up on the topic before beginning to discuss.

Yes, you've changed my wording entirely, when, in fact, it should be patently obvious to anyone who's read up on the subject that, despite my grammatical misrepresentation and leaving out of a prepositional phrase (grammar was never my strong suit, correct term?) due to not being able to type as well as I typically can, since I have a casted finger, I was referring to 2010.

I'm sorry, perhaps you've not actually read up on the subject. I'll leave you to do so, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

... The White House Press releases (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the subject.

What else do you propose they do? Take an extended vacation?

No, you haven't. You pointed out an error in multiplicative rounding, which I said was an error.

Actually, it's more like "I'm gaining weight, I should probably not bother getting a nose job." That is, if you insist on using inaccurate, non-representative analogies which serve only to cloud an already complex issue which you, apparently, haven't read up on.

I'm saying that the stimulus isn't the correct solution.

Actually, like I said before, it was a rounding of 74x,xxx to 750k, which, when multiplied by 3 million tends to have a cumulative effect. The point was not to showcase the total cost of the bailout, but to showcase the perceived benefit for each individual job.

I'll refer you back to my original statement, in that it should've been perfectly obvious to anyone who's read up on the subject what I was referring to. Much like had I mentioned "The space shuttle launch," while discussing it in a denny's in Ontario, I wasn't referring to them launching it from the roof.

FOR TWO! :laugh:
I shouldn't need to, frankly. Anyone who's kept up with the news should know that the conservative estimates put the cost of the stimulus at 190k per job (rather, 187k, since rounding is a no-no for you), and the higher numbers as much as 312k.

*cough* You're beginning to sound like a broken record. You do realize that you've already said this in this post, and by repeating yourself you simply look like you have alzheimer's?

Which is ironic, because you're ignoring the multiplier effects of rounding.

And no, I'm not ignoring the multiplier effects. I'm thinking of them quite well, in that it takes far longer to pay off said debt, and since we have an already exploding deficit, and are past our scalps in debt, perhaps we should try to avoid putting our great great great grandkids into debt for a token gesture.
Not even close, but thanks for trying.

Didn't you just say that in point 1? Albeit in a slightly less condescending and ignorant fashion.

I'll refer you to the answer to one. Frankly, if you want to continue this discussion, you're going to have to bring something more to the table than insults, "nu uh!" and "omgz u rounded rong!" I don't have the time or the inclination to repeat myself with a sore, broken hand.

You've changed your argument 3 times. You don't understand the fundamentals of the stimulus. Your math is wrong. You intentionally distort facts. You intentionally exaggerate what facts do exist. You make shit up. You complain about "ad hom" attacks while referring me to a calculator when I question your sources. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Zombicide]

Not to say I have any allegiance to Britain but. . .he gave them fuckin DVDs, I get the feeling that they probably walked away feeling a bit insulted. Also, what the hell is up with Hillary Clinton and the misspelled reset button? That couldn't have been done on accident, could it? It's really not looking like a good sign of things to come.

[Lycurgus]

You've changed your argument 3 times. You don't understand the fundamentals of the stimulus. Your math is wrong. You intentionally distort facts. You intentionally exaggerate what facts do exist. You make shit up. You complain about "ad hom" attacks while referring me to a calculator when I question your sources. Welcome to my ignore list.No major loss. I did attempt to be civil throughout the entire discussion, despite your condescension and false characterizations.

Yeah, Barack Hussein Obama is a piece of crap -- giving a billion dollars to Hamas so they can build holy missiles, restructuring our markets into a command economy -- Bush will look like a genius before this is all over.Do you have a cite for the giving Hamas a billion dollars, thing? Because I'd be interested in reading up on that.

Although, it's important to remember that despite the fact that there is a wing of Hamas which is a terrorist organization, they do dispense quite a bit of aide to the Palestinian people. This, however, comes with caveates.

Their schools are basically fundamentalist/extremist breeding grounds.
Often times, their hospitals (and schools) act as launch sites for their Quosam Missiles.


Yeah, never mind, for a minute there I forgot why they're a terrorist organization... because they launch missiles from schools and hospitals and use fundamentalist teachings of Islamic law to indoctrinate extremism and breed terrorism.

[Solus]

I didn't imply that. I said no one calls himself a socialist anymore -- the post-WWII thing is your own conception. Ever since Keynes, interventionism has been preferred because it preserves the veneer of capitalism yet retains the reality of state control.

Thanks for the answer. Sory about the post-WWII thing. I should have been clearer. I mentioned it because I didn't want the likes of, say, Roosevelt cited as politicans who would describe themselves or their policies as socialist. (Of course I'm not suggesting that he indeed called himself socialist). I just wanted to know if there was a more recent example of such a politician in the US because I have never heard of one. Of course, in the absence of a socialist or social-democratic parties in the two-party system in the US this is something to be expected, but the word itself seems to be used almost exclusively as a label pinned on some Democrats and perhaps some left-wing Republicans by those from the opposite political camp. That is what makes it different from Europe.

[INTJRyan]

The more I see of him the more I like him. The reversal of several retarded Bush policies have made the vote for him more than worth it. He's on the right track and I hope he keeps it up.

[Lycurgus]

I am happy he overturned Stem Cell research.

[Profit]

At least old-school progressives wasted our money in big, creative ways-- for example, sending men to the moon.

Yeah, Barack Hussein Obama is a piece of crap -- giving a billion dollars to Hamas so they can build holy missiles, restructuring our markets into a command economy -- Bush will look like a genius before this is all over.

The Mercury and Apollo missions were far from a
waste of money (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and no one is talking about creating a command economy.

[LaoTzu]

IMO it's acceptable to use the term "socialist" in a colloquial fashion to mean "preference for centrally-planned solutions as opposed to market-based solutions" and/or "falling closer to the socialist end of the interventionist spectrum". I think most people understand this when the term is used conversationally and it's splitting hairs to insist that he's not technically a socialist (which in Obama's case, as with many others, seems to be more a matter of pragmatism than any perceived flaws with socialism).

I agree with the idea that the term 'Socialist' infers those who prefer central planning. However, I doubt you listen to the right-wing honks on American radio.

Calling someone a 'Socialist' in the US is kin to calling them a 'Pinko-Commie' in most circles, and the unfortunate 'Joe-public' really isn't interested enough to know the difference, and just how unfair an accusation it really is.

As far as the comments on Greenspan go, I heard a bit today about the creation of the derivatives market, and the guy who 'created' them (as if it was one guy) had suggested some amount of oversight, to which Greenspan said "nah, the market will regulate itself".

Most telling is Greenspan's incredulity at the recklessness of his brethren.

As for the idea that this was a manufactured crisis: I do have a 'gut-feeling' that this was intended to happen, and that yes, the Bushies were looking to solidify Conservative dominance by creating a crisis for the next administration (which was likely to be Dem.). After 4 years of crisis, the people wouldn't hesitate to vote Con. for the next 20+ years....fortunately , the market didn't wait the extra 4 months required for it to work :)

I think the crisis is probably the largest heist in human history...

[PeterIMC]

As for the idea that this was a manufactured crisis: I do have a 'gut-feeling' that this was intended to happen, and that yes, the Bushies were looking to solidify Conservative dominance by creating a crisis for the next administration (which was likely to be Dem.). After 4 years of crisis, the people wouldn't hesitate to vote Con. for the next 20+ years....fortunately , the market didn't wait the extra 4 months required for it to work :)

I think the crisis is probably the largest heist in human history...

That's taking it way to far. A crisis like this can not be manufactured. You´re giving the republicans way too much credit if you believe they can actually plan and implement something like this on purpose.

They believe markets with as little as possible regulation is the best way to go,.. that's why they made the mistake to reduce regulations too much. But to think that that alone is the cause of the crises is just wrong.

[Lohengram]

I'm curious. Has anyone changed their mind, either positively or negatively, from the opinion they held of him when he was elected?

I thought very poorly of him back then (not that his opponent was any better,) and he's done nothing to change that opinion, but I'm curious to see what the general impression of the first 8 weeks of his presidency are.

I'm especially unimpressed by his current attitude towards earmarks, which he was such a vigorous opponent of on the campaign trail, as well as the numerous road trips he's been making rather than doing actual work. Not to mention the embarrassing gift to the British PM.

Contrary opinions, and agreement, both desired.

I expected bad things from Obama and he hasn't failed my expectations. I'm curious as to why you oppose earmarks though? Do you not like having a transparent system of spending? Do you operate under the principle of see no evil hear no evil speak no evil? If there're no earmarks and all funds are spent in an opaque way by the executive and their bureaucratic acolytes would that ignorance bring you bliss?

If not, perhaps you’re merely unaware that earmarks do not increase spending but merely allocate it in a transparent fashion? Still oppose earmarks?

[Rudy]

I expected bad things from Obama and he hasn't failed my expectations. I'm curious as to why you oppose earmarks though? Do you not like having a transparent system of spending? Do you operate under the principle of see no evil hear no evil speak no evil? If there're no earmarks and all funds are spent in an opaque way by the executive and their bureaucratic acolytes would that ignorance bring you bliss?

If not, perhaps you’re merely unaware that earmarks do not increase spending but merely allocate it in a transparent fashion? Still oppose earmarks?

I'm rather neutral on the concept itself. The problem is that he was so opposed to them on the campaign trail, through condemning their use by others, and seems to have quickly reversed himself. I know presidential hypocrisy is nothing new, but it is still disappointing.

[Lohengram]

If his back tracking bothers you there's a long list of thing's he has back tracked on. What about publishing all legislation online 5 days before passing it? He broke that promise instantly. Then there are his constant revisions to his foreign policy and his stance on privacy and the powers of the executive. He has been modifying his stance on all these things throughout his campaign for the presidency and he's continuing to modify them in office making him more and more of a continuity President.

That's not to mention the sheer spin doctoring nature of his administration. His economic policy is bush term 3 with regard to the current crises. When Bush came in 8 years ago he had a stock market and tech bubble and he tried to combat it with tax cuts and government spending and government deficits and 1% interest rates. Now Obama and his "change" dogma is cutting taxes and spending and bailing people out and cutting interest rates to 0% and massively expanding the money supply. Does the same policy structure on steroids really count as change?

I'm not necessarily trying to convince you, it's more I'm trying to fan the flames of annoyance at his presidency by giving plenty of reasons to hold it in contempt. To refer to an Austrian outlook on the world. Human action is a reaction to a perceived uneasiness by an individual; their action is a result of their cognitive functions determining a method to alter their current circumstances to that of a more desirable set of circumstances. So the more strongly perceived the uneasiness is the greater weight which it shall receive in a person’s ordinal rankings, of their perceived uneasinesses in life. Plus this is an open thread were messages are probably read by more than the writer and the immediate addressee.

In addition of course I'm simply trying to get 15 posts so that I can attain access to every part of this forum.

[Rudy]

Plus this is an open thread were messages are probably read by more than the writer and the immediate addressee.

True enough. By all means, fan away! However, I think there are enough reasons to hold his presidency in contempt without having to bring in the Austrian school. I say this only because that enough people doubt the precepts of the Austrian school that it makes your argument less convincing when you base it on said school.

[Lohengram]

If I know it to be true why would I not reference it? If you visited a community of people that believed that spiritual entities influenced every aspect of their lives and they wouldn’t understand any argument that didn’t involve the competing actions of deities in influencing their lives. Would you make up a deity to act as a proxy for your own views in order to have your ideas expressed to them in a manner they would accept? Or would you challenge their underlying outlook in addition to making references to more specific problems at hand?

[Rudy]

If I know it to be true why would I not reference it? If you visited a community of people that believed that spiritual entities influenced every aspect of their lives and they wouldn’t understand any argument that didn’t involve the competing actions of deities in influencing their lives. Would you make up a deity to act as a proxy for your own views in order to have your ideas expressed to them in a manner they would accept? Or would you challenge their underlying outlook in addition to making references to more specific problems at hand?

It would depend on what my immediate goal was. If I thought I could convince all of them of the validity of my argument by adopting an analogy that was more comfortable to them I would, rather than try to (almost certainly unsuccessfully,) undermine their fundamental beliefs.

[Lohengram]

Well that'll only work if the problems at hand can be solved without a change in their fundamental beliefs. In addition to that of course, even if it were possible to solve the problems at hand without changing their fundamental beliefs, but that the manner in which they would solve them would create other, perhaps even worse problems, then that method wouldn't appear so appealing. Changing their fundamental beliefs could well take longer and produce no immediate benefits. If you can state the failings in their system and the failings in their remedies to their problems then in time you should be able to build up a following if you're accurate in predicting the outcome of events and they're not. Immediate results are not always the best results. As the saying goes, he who laughs last laughs best.

[Rudy]

Allow me to illustrate my point through analogy.

I am an atheist. I think the world would be better off without religion. I do not, however, go around trying to de-convert people from their religion; this is not just because it would make me look like a jerk. I also do not do so because it would cause people to dig in their heels against anything else that I might have to say. Rather, I would like to encourage people to think for themselves, and to question authority, and to convince them of the reliability of science in general. I think all of these, much more modest goals, will in the long run lead to a decline in religious belief.

Likewise, if your goal is the promotion of the Austrian school, I think it better to work on viewpoints that would lead toward sympathy for the Austrian school, rather than try and convince people of its validity directly.

[boldbidder]

If his back tracking bothers you there's a long list of thing's he has back tracked on. What about publishing all legislation online 5 days before passing it? He broke that promise instantly. Then there are his constant revisions to his foreign policy and his stance on privacy and the powers of the executive. He has been modifying his stance on all these things throughout his campaign for the presidency and he's continuing to modify them in office making him more and more of a continuity President.

That's not to mention the sheer spin doctoring nature of his administration. His economic policy is bush term 3 with regard to the current crises. When Bush came in 8 years ago he had a stock market and tech bubble and he tried to combat it with tax cuts and government spending and government deficits and 1% interest rates. Now Obama and his "change" dogma is cutting taxes and spending and bailing people out and cutting interest rates to 0% and massively expanding the money supply. Does the same policy structure on steroids really count as change?

I've never quite understood the obsession with politicians changing their minds. I only say this because I personally approach life as whole in an iterative fashion, where I seek for each success iteration to be better than the previous one. This often entails modifying previously held views as either the environment changes or additional information is discovered. Granted, rarely does this lead to a total reversal on a particular stance, but it is possible. Is it realistic or even practical to hold on to a particular stance regardless of other factors? Is abject certainty in politics that important?

[Rudy]

I've never quite understood the obsession with politicians changing their minds. I only say this because I personally approach life as whole in an iterative fashion, where I seek for each success iteration to be better than the previous one. This often entails modifying previously held views as either the environment changes or additional information is discovered. Granted, rarely does this lead to a total reversal on a particular stance, but it is possible. Is it realistic or even practical to hold on to a particular stance regardless of other factors? Is abject certainty in politics that important?

No, politicians cannot be expected to never change their minds. However, if they reverse a campaign promise or position, they can, at the very least be expected to explain why they are changing it.

[Lohengram]

Bage does not draw attention; belief systems follow 3 stages in their public perception. 1st Ridicule; 2nd Suppression and 3rd Acceptance. This is a typical format for how ideas come into acceptance by the general public or indeed an intellectual community. An idea can of course die off at either stage 1 or 2. The fact that some people dig their heels in and rebuke an idea strongly is often a positive not a negative. When coming out strongly in opposition to an ideal people will also expose what they stand for. This brings those ideas more prominently into the collective consciousness and only when they’re common contemplated does the possibility even exist for those beliefs to be challenged and overturned. Galileo's greatest achievement was his public contrarian position, if he had held his views as a purely private affair and deferred to the standards of the day publicly he would not be famous today even if his academic work was the same.

It's not an issue of changing their mind. He clearly never meant much of what he said;he only said certain things to fool certain people into supporting him when he never intended to do those things. That's the issue.

[boldbidder]

No, politicians cannot be expected to never change their minds. However, if they reverse a campaign promise or position, they can, at the very least be expected to explain why they are changing it.

That's fair, so explaining a policy shift or stance change would alleviate some of your problem with it, or is the underlying issue the possibility that the new stance/view is in conflict with your own?

[Lohengram]

The issue is more trust (keep his promises and knowing he won't lightly make promises) and openness than agreement. If I could observe what he did (which was part of his campaign promise, openness with things like 5 days to review legislation before he signed it) I could trust and respect him but still disagree with him.

[INTJRyan]

Please cite where Obama promised to end earmarks during the campaign. The omnibus bill was left over from the Bush admin, and Obama did explain why he signed it. So you guys must be talking about something else.

[MrFlaneur]

Here's my question about the DVDs. Are they in the right formant so that Brown can watch them in the UK?


thats brilliant - i was thinking about thay earlier today

but why get gb some dvds - he only has one eye and rumour has it that hes losing the sight in that one as well; at the height of his unpopularity last year people were speculating that he could quit on the grounds of ill health or that he could not read the memos given to him. apparently all of his documents have to be in a massive font. i was watching pm questions earlier today and i was looking down at his notes - even i could read them

is it not inconsiderate of obama to give him dvds. the last thing i would wont to do is strain my only eye watching cheap dvd pap.

its like a double blow adding insult to injury

gb gave obama a sensitive gift of a pen holder made out of the hull of ship that played its part in ending the sea slave trade. the penholder is made out of said ship which was a sistership to a much larger vessle. that main vessle is what obamas presidential desk is crafted from. very touching i think

obama would have had more manners just to spit in Britains and gbs face

[eternaltriangle]

Please cite where Obama promised to end earmarks during the campaign. The omnibus bill was left over from the Bush admin, and Obama did explain why he signed it. So you guys must be talking about something else.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I had low expectations of both McCain and Obama during the election. McCain had adopted some ridiculous populist positions (and a ridiculous populist running mate) in his desperation, while Obama changed positions enough that it was really anybody's guess as to what he would do in office. I also really despised his idiotic hardcore supporters, and feared the implications of a candidate the media cannot criticize. Neither candidate had a fiscally realistic plan even before the financial crisis.

After the election I moved towards moderate approval of Obama. His cabinet choices were solid - I like that he kept Gates, appointed Clinton SoS (I am not a citizen but I would have been a Clinton supporter in the primaries and general election). I like his financial team, both Geithner and Summers. I also like Joe Biden. His team is a bunch of pragmatic problem-solvers, and that gave me some hope.

Since actually coming into office, however, I am back to disapproval. Obama's "stimulus" has far too much ideologically motivated spending on social programs, which will be politically difficult to ever cut, and which will provide little short-term boost, and a long-term drain on the economy (according to the non-partisan CBO we will be poorer, not richer, as a result of this budget). I don't like the all-tax cut plan much either - I think a mix of targeted tax cuts (cuts to the top marginal rates, and corporate taxes NOT Obama's cuts to the lower rates, which do little) and infrastructure spending (which is short-term in cost, long-term in benefits) was preferable.

Moreover, I haven't seen a lot of commitment to future deficit reduction. A short term stimulus will fail if investors do not see a bright future in the long-run (after all if I cut taxes and raise spending it also increases the deficit, which implies that at some future date, I will have to raise taxes and cut spending). While I supported the banking bailout, neither the Bush administration nor Obama has seemed to be able to solve underlying structural problems with the banks. I am beginning to think that short-term nationalization is the best option (something I am not ordinarily inclined towards, because I do generally prefer small government).

I am heartened, however, by a few things. CITI ran a profit and it looks like some of the banks are starting to turn things around. I think some structural problems still need to be fixed, but there is hope for a recovery relatively soon. Secondly, the AIG bonus issue is the first instance where I have seen the press get tough on Obama. Whether you like him or not, the president needs to have his policies criticized, and you can't really count on the battered Republican minority (who face serious internal strife) to do that. Finally, I have my bets hedged - I like Canada's incumbent Prime Minister. If there is a recovery that sees Obama reelected, Canada's PM will probably survive too. If not, I will be rid of Obama, but also a PM I like (the financial crisis has also caused the Canadian dollar to drop 25% - I am paid in US dollars, so I am a lot richer when I visit the old country).

[INTJRyan]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You are unequivocally wrong. The story to which you linked quotes Obama from a news conference held two weeks before he took office. In that news conference, he vowed that there would be no earmarks in the stimulus bill. And there were virtually none. The full quote from Obama is as follows: “Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

Obama did not say he would ban all earmarks from regular spending bills. In fact, Obama has pledged to reform the earmark process and has consistently said that earmarks have their place when properly done i.e. WITH TRANSPARENCY.

[eternaltriangle]

"Obama did not say he would ban all earmarks from regular spending bills. In fact, Obama has pledged to reform the earmark process and has consistently said that earmarks have their place when properly done i.e. WITH TRANSPARENCY."

You are quibbling about technicalities. If that genuinely was Obama's position in the election, he would have been excoriated for it on a regular basis (how could he have limited his opposition to earmarks to the economic recovery plan when for most of the campaign he didn't know there would be an economic recovery plan).

As for the recovery plan, Obama got around earmarks there by redefining earmarks. Wow, what a great initiative to reduce the problem. Even if he does eventually reform the process, wouldn't it be nice for him to have done so BEFORE spending ~4 trillion dollars of taxpayer money?

What was stopping Obama from telling congress: take out the crap or I will veto this bill? What congressman would want to be known as the guy who stalled the budget so he could build a shoe museum or whatever in his district?

[INTJRyan]

"Obama did not say he would ban all earmarks from regular spending bills. In fact, Obama has pledged to reform the earmark process and has consistently said that earmarks have their place when properly done i.e. WITH TRANSPARENCY."

You are quibbling about technicalities. If that genuinely was Obama's position in the election, he would have been excoriated for it on a regular basis (how could he have limited his opposition to earmarks to the economic recovery plan when for most of the campaign he didn't know there would be an economic recovery plan).

As for the recovery plan, Obama got around earmarks there by redefining earmarks. Wow, what a great initiative to reduce the problem. Even if he does eventually reform the process, wouldn't it be nice for him to have done so BEFORE spending ~4 trillion dollars of taxpayer money?

What was stopping Obama from telling congress: take out the crap or I will veto this bill? What congressman would want to be known as the guy who stalled the budget so he could build a shoe museum or whatever in his district?

You must not have watched the debates because Obama said the same thing then and was consistent about it. Go research it if you'd like. Sorry if that distracts from your ability to be angry over nothing.

[eternaltriangle]

So INTJryan,

If somebody said "I would never rape you in your own home", then "I would never rape you at work", but then rapes you on the street, are you any less raped?

[INTJRyan]

So INTJryan,

If somebody said "I would never rape you in your own home", then "I would never rape you at work", but then rapes you on the street, are you any less raped?

:huh: Uhm, no. But I can't say the rapist broke his/her promise either.

[PeterIMC]

It's funny, I remember now 8 years ago a journalist asked the Dutch Priminister what he thought about that the president of the USA changed from a democrat to a republican.... His answer was: "Well, it's still an american, so doesn't make that much of a difference."

I think that applies today as well.

[crux]

It's funny, I remember now 8 years ago a journalist asked the Dutch Priminister what he thought about that the president of the USA changed from a democrat to a republican.... His answer was: "Well, it's still an american, so doesn't make that much of a difference."

I think that applies today as well.

No offense to anyone who is dutch, but that's a really pessimistic thing to say. I mean, sure, every great power has done some things in its history which are wrong, despicable, or not "morally"/"ethically" correct, but that doesn't mean that country cannot change its image in the world in the future -- does it not?

[Indy]

Well, a resident Dutchman on this forum, I feel slightly compelled for a short reaction.

First of all, Clinton was generally well liked, Bush universally despised, Obama sofar unanimously loved, in Holland and the rest of the EU for that matter.

Secondly, I think our PM (Wim Kok, Labour Party) changed it's mind rather swiftly after the policies of the Bush Administrations and significantly for the worse.

Thirdly, the Dutch government supports the US in both Afganistan and Iraq, the latter waged amidst widespread disapproval and ultimately false grounds, which would have let for the cabinet to resign where it not for smooth wheeling-and-dealing in the current coalition. (This was under our next PM, a Harry Potter look-a-like)To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Dutch (and EU) attitutes to the US are bipolar; we love the Starbucks-drinking, urban, cosmopolitan liberals, as long as they endorse free-trade.
We hate the populist, militaristic, Rush-Limbaugh-loving, bible-belt, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, red-neck stereotype.

Obama seems like the former; Sarah Palin the latter.

Getting out of Iraq, closing Guantanamo and Abu Graib, and discarding Patriot Act policies is helping the US image as well. Still wanting to continue to fight in Afganistan and Pakistan not so much.

[Solus]

Dutch (and EU) attitutes to the US are bipolar; we love the Starbucks-drinking, urban, cosmopolitan liberals, as long as they endorse free-trade.

Are you absolutely sure about this bit? There are quite a few countries who would cringe at the prospect of free trade with the US (Thatcher's TAFTA springs to one's mind). Not to mention the GMO ban in the EU that some, and rightly so in my opinion, are adamant about. I'm sure there are also other differences between the US and Europe that are being discussed at the WTO. As for American protectionism, I think, few would object to such protectionist measures as they are being introduced world-wide, Europe included.

Still wanting to continue to fight in Afganistan and Pakistan not so much.

Obama is trying to get Russians on board there which is a sensible change of strategy. The situation in Afghanistan doesn't look good and leaving the country to its own devices would see the return of the Taliban regime. Much is at stake there and it's much better for the Americans and NATO troops to stay there.

[eternaltriangle]

Indy, that is almost word for word how most Canadians feel about Americans (free trade is the one issue that tends to make us concerned about Obama). Heck, that is also how most Democrats feel about Americans.

Solus, "free" trade is generally relative in practice. Certainly few Dutch people (or Canadians) would be happy if Obama raised tariffs, particularly on goods like steel, where we are more competitive than they are. Generally when people think about free trade, they don't think of it as a two-way street - they only think of how the other guys are putting the screws to them (Canadians are quick to complain about Bush's softwood lumber tariffs, but not so quick to talk about our subsidies to certain industries).

[Indy]

Britain is certainly more close to the US than the rest of the EU (Anglo-Saxon after all), and of course there are differences between EU countries, but as an overal picture, I think it's correct.

Certainly, people are not excited about free-trade per se, in fact, they are likely to be hypocritical about it, but which country isn't. 'Buy American' provisions, trade-tariffs are from a European perspective not appreciated. Actually, this isn't such a major concern for most people. But with the global financial crisis going on, we don't want another Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

Actually, the EU and US have common ground in defending agricultural (sugarbeets/cotton) subsidies and the like at WTO level. The IMF and World Bank aren't appreciated that much as well, even if we have far more say in the procedures than others. See Mahbubani's work. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

On Afganistan, the opinions are divided indeed and I'm not in a position to say what the correct approach should be, but I do know that popularity in the Netherlands is low after our deployment in Uruzgan, eventhough they we faired relatively well. The violence has indeed increased the last years and people do not see the prospects for an eventual peaceful resolution. The intricacies of tribalism and other local features have not been fully understood and has lead, and possibly continues to lead, to major policy mistakes, so I'm pessimistic about the whole enterprise as well.

Obama has been urging European nations to increase their commitment, but as far as I can tell, most are luke-warm about it. That makes you wonder what the value of having a popular president (Obama) is, relative an unpopular one (Bush), if it doesn't get you any support on the vital issues.

You might remember that during the speech Obama gave in Berlin, that the huge crowds were awfully silent, when he asked for support in 'fighting terrorism in Afganistan', it felt like an awkward moment to me and was the main point of disagreement.

[Krazy P]

Lycurgus:

I agree re economics and your other observations. The only thing that governments can do to the economy is make things worse. I will add a few comments from recent behaviors which are troubling to me.

The crack about Special Olympics is very revealing. I have heard a very few people in my whole life (I am 55) make such a bigoted remark. It has usually been followed by an uncomfortable silence. The times I have heard it have been in locker rooms or other "insider" setting. The fact that he made it in a formal setting (an interview on TV!) speaks volumes about his world view and other things. He chose the words, no-one else.

His verbal constructions use "I" "me" "mine" very, very frequently.

He brings the teleprompter everywhere and when he doesn't he often makes a gaff.

He appeared on Jay Leno. And 60 minutes. This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it diminishes the office of the President. Second, it shows that he doesn't think that the office of the Presidency - and the traditions and formality of it - are important. Or, at least not as important as his individual agenda. I believe it also shows a lack of understanding of human ritual and role that leadership plays in a community.

He screwed up the exchange of gifts to a head of state and very strong ally. The DVDs he gave don't even work in the U.K. Gift giving between heads of state is a ritual that has been going on for 5,000 years. Again, it shows a lack of understanding of leadership. It is also thoughtless on a personal level.

So, I am troubled.

I'm not a fan of Obama, and I wasn't from the start. I prefer him over McCain, however only slightly, and only because I wasn't even remotely comfortable with Palin being so close to the Presidency. The fact that Biden is almost as moronic a VP choice was a limiting factor, but not so much as to completely eliminate that grievous oversight in rational thinking -- they didn't even bother to vet her! She energized the base; and alienated moderates.

To expect a president to be able to fix the economy is a horrible misunderstanding of economics. If you were to compare the economy to the Mississippi River, government is currently standing in the delta shoveling silt screaming "We'll stop the flood!"

Simply put; Economies in Capitalist societies are entities unto themselves, and to expect any single entity to be able to control them beyond the most minor of alterations (especially positive ones) is absolute insanity.

The sad fact of the matter is that what Obama and the US Government is doing is going to fail. I'd wager good money (not that there is much of that, anymore) on it. We're going to go into a depression that rivals that of of the '30s. Although it will be a different sort of depression.

We'll see investments regress 13-18 years (they're already well on their way -- I believe we're at '93-'96 levels now), and we're going to end up seeing runaway inflation at the rates of 23-25%, because of the trillions of dollars that this administration is pumping into the economy. Sure, we'll all have $250,000 in the bank, but we'll need that for a gallon of milk (admittedly, a hyperbole).

He squandered an amazing amount of political capitol getting extremely poor choices for his Cabinet confirmed.

In all, my opinion of Obama was lukewarm at best, with his asinine grandiose promises of "Change!" without any detail on how or what, and that has diminished significantly.

[maxpot46]

The crack about Special Olympics is very revealing. I have heard a very few people in my whole life (I am 55) make such a bigoted remark. It has usually been followed by an uncomfortable silence. The times I have heard it have been in locker rooms or other "insider" setting. The fact that he made it in a formal setting (an interview on TV!) speaks volumes about his world view and other things. He chose the words, no-one else.Totally agreed, man. I was unbelievably shocked... in fact, I thought someone was quoting the Onion when I first heard about it. I mean, what a prick! So much for the "guy I can have a beer with" thing he had going on.He appeared on Jay Leno. And 60 minutes. This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it diminishes the office of the President. Second, it shows that he doesn't think that the office of the Presidency - and the traditions and formality of it - are important. Or, at least not as important as his individual agenda. I believe it also shows a lack of understanding of human ritual and role that leadership plays in a community.This much I appreciate. We put way too much pomp and circumstance on that office. He's just an elected servant, no need to take on airs.

[Lucid]

The crack about Special Olympics is very revealing. I have heard a very few people in my whole life (I am 55) make such a bigoted remark.

Either you have led a very sheltered life or you are somehow biased on this issue. Was the comment in poor taste? Definitely. Was it worthy of saying it's one of the most bigoted remarks heard in 55 years? I think it's a streatch.

His verbal constructions use "I" "me" "mine" very, very frequently.

He brings the teleprompter everywhere and when he doesn't he often makes a gaff.

He appeared on Jay Leno. And 60 minutes. This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it diminishes the office of the President. Second, it shows that he doesn't think that the office of the Presidency - and the traditions and formality of it - are important. Or, at least not as important as his individual agenda. I believe it also shows a lack of understanding of human ritual and role that leadership plays in a community.

He screwed up the exchange of gifts to a head of state and very strong ally. The DVDs he gave don't even work in the U.K. Gift giving between heads of state is a ritual that has been going on for 5,000 years. Again, it shows a lack of understanding of leadership. It is also thoughtless on a personal level.

So, I am troubled.

THIS is what you have to bitch about??? He's saying that they've got outside lending going on because the banks are not lending even after the BILLIONS of dollars we have given them TO LEND and that we are now planning on giving them billions of dollars MORE.... and you're actually bitching about DVDs, the frequency with which he uses the words "I" "me" and "mine," a joke about the Special Olympics and a telepromptor?

Really? Are you serious or is this some kind of very subtle irony or satire? THESE THINGS are what you're worried about?
I mean I admit, other than the finance debacle, maybe it's hard to find fault with him in any serious way, partly because he's only been in office for 2 months (althought I can find plenty of things to take issue with). But really? This crap?

[Arcturus]

I always was, and still remain, a firm supporter of Mr. Obama. However, the truth is the problem is not with politicians, the problem is really in the masses and the prevailing moral zeitgeist. Obama advocates change, and his speeches have focused on the issue of personal responsibility, the irrevocable relationship between rights and responsibilities. If we want to effect change, we must be the effectors of that change - we are the only reliable source of it. Sadly, this has been overooked by the populace, who simply want someone else to return security, prosperity and peace of mind to their lives.

The masses of the world have (and have always) this idea that it's ok to sit back and do nothing while deferring responsibility to the heads of state, imagining them the bearers of magic wands, able to change everything. This morality is a SLAVE morality, it is a LAZY morality, it is going to get us nowhere. Our power is not limited to our ability to VOTE, for heaven's sake, we have to make the adjustments and provisions necessary to direct the future of our society. We need to stop being sheep.

[Lohengram]

If you believe in individual responsibility it is mind boggling to me that you support Obama at all let alone be a firm supporter, you should be among his greatest opponents. Obama does nothing to encourage personal responsibility at any level, everything he does says "don't worry the government is here", he is the enemy of personal responsibility and the friend of collectivist action.

[Lucid]

If you believe in individual responsibility it is mind boggling to me that you support Obama at let alone be a firm supporter, you should be among his greatest opponents. Obama does not to encourage personal responsibility at any level, everything he does says "don't worry the government is here", he is the enemy of personal responsibility and the friend of collectivist action.

That's a bit of an overstatement and a gross generalization. And I think any reasonable person would see it as such. It might be that he wants more government involvement than you personally do, but to say that "Obama does not to encourage personal responsibility at any level, everything he does says 'don't worry the government is here'" is a bit of a stretch, even by the standards of this forum.

[Lohengram]

That's a bit of an overstatement and a gross generalization. And I think any reasonable person would see it as such. It might be that he wants more government involvement than you personally do, but to say that "Obama does not to encourage personal responsibility at any level, everything he does says 'don't worry the government is here'" is a bit of a stretch, even by the standards of this forum.

By encourage, I would take that to mean he wishes for there to be more than what existed in the past, is this an erroneous why to read that? If not, which actions of his encourage greater personal responsibility relative to the recent past? I can think of many that do the opposite, none that do that.

[Lucid]

By encourage, I would take that to mean he wishes for there to be more than what existed in the past, is this an erroneous why to read that? If not, which actions of his encourage greater personal responsibility relative to the recent past? I can think of many that do the opposite, none that do that.

Forgive me, but aren't you a citizen of the UK?

So he's not wishing for there to be more personal responsibility? Encouraging people to volunteer, go to college, not bailing out people with bad mortgages, trying to reform health care to allow for more small businesses to be able to afford to operate, not socializing the banks, setting up a system so people can put in volunteer hours and get money to put towards tuition... that's all actively discouraging personal responsibility? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of that term. Maybe what you mean by "personal responsibility" is "poor, uneducated and in debt."

[Lohengram]

Forgive me, but aren't you a citizen of the UK?

Indeed I am, forgive me, is there some magical American ability you possess that allows you to understand a written/verbal/any fact/statement differently than a non-citizen? do you possess a magical innate ability to comprehend things non-citizens cannot? You better inform all historians the world over that they're wasting their time because no non-citizen of a country could ever have the slightest comprehension of anything within "my country".



So he's not wishing for there to be more personal responsibility? Encouraging people to volunteer, go to college, not bailing out people with bad mortgages, trying to reform health care to allow for more small businesses to be able to afford to operate, not socializing the banks, setting up a system so people can put in volunteer hours and get money to put towards tuition... that's all actively discouraging personal responsibility? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of that term. Maybe what you mean by "personal responsibility" is "poor, uneducated and in debt."

Encourage people to volunteer through his compulsory work programmes? encouraging people to go to College based on a government quota and funding system? bailing out every special interest group in the country if not every single person in the country? socialising health care? taking a corporatist banking system to the brink of the corporatist/socialist divide?

Perhaps we do have different understandings of “relative to the past” to me that makes a reference to the past and the present. To you it seems to mean, “look he didn’t totally socialise the banks; he’s not totally socialising the health care system, so if it’s not total socialism it’s still SOME personal responsibility, so clearly he’s for personal responsibility”

[Lucid]

Indeed I am, forgive me, is there some magical American ability you possess that allows you to understand a written/verbal/any fact/statement differently than a non-citizen? do you possess a magical innate ability to comprehend things non-citizens cannot? You better inform all historians the world over that they're wasting their time because no non-citizen of a country could ever have the slightest comprehension of anything within "my country".

No. But it does mean that you may not have the same understanding of the situations that someone who lives here does. I would hesitate to comment on politics in the UK because I'm an outsider and I think it would be rather arrogant of me and, probably, just make me look ignorant.


Encourage people to volunteer through his compulsory work programmes? encouraging people to go to College based on a government quota and funding system? bailing out every special interest group in the country if not every single person in the country? socialising health care? taking a corporatist banking system to the brink of the corporatist/socialist divide?

See my comment above about looking ignorant. Perhaps you could provide some sources as to where you're getting these claims from? Special interest? Government quota funding system? Compulsory work programs? I admit that there's plenty of news that I miss, but I think I would remember things like that. Either that or you're taking things and relabeling them to skew their appearance.

Perhaps we do have different understandings of “relative to the past” to me that makes a reference to the past and the present. To you it seems to mean, “look he didn’t totally socialise the banks; he’s not totally socialising the health care system, so if it’s not total socialism it’s still SOME personal responsibility, so clearly he’s for personal responsibility”

He didn't socialize the banks at all. And thus far nothing has been done about health care but sort of vague talk, so it remains to be seen what will happen.

In the recent past we saw a complete divorce from personal responsibility in the financial industry and the housing markets, so I'm not sure where you're drawing this comparison from either. It's actually been quite a while since there's been a lot of personal responsibility around here, socialism or no.

[Lohengram]

No. But it does mean that you may not have the same understanding of the situations that someone who lives here does. I would hesitate to comment on politics in the UK because I'm an outsider and I think it would be rather arrogant of me and, probably, just make me look ignorant.




See my comment above about looking ignorant. Perhaps you could provide some sources as to where you're getting these claims from? Special interest? Government quota funding system? Compulsory work programs? I admit that there's plenty of news that I miss, but I think I would remember things like that. Either that or you're taking things and relabeling them to skew their appearance.



He didn't socialize the banks at all. And thus far nothing has been done about health care but sort of vague talk, so it remains to be seen what will happen.

In the recent past we saw a complete divorce from personal responsibility in the financial industry and the housing markets, so I'm not sure where you're drawing this comparison from either. It's actually been quite a while since there's been a lot of personal responsibility around here, socialism or no.

You’re unaware that there’re thousands of lobbyists in Washington and that millions of dollars are funnelled from wealthy groups to the dominant parties and that his cabinet appointees originate from many of the Banks he is bailing out? You’re unaware of racial and income related quotas in your education system? You’re unaware of Obama’s civilian defence and community service plans? You don’t need links you need to a “welcome to America full course education programme”.

Didn’t socialise banks at all? So the government has no ownership stakes in any banks at all? The government has no say in the management and spending plans of any banks? That’s a relief, good thing that there’re people as on the ball as you are in “your country” let’s remember, to keep old ignorant foreigner like me in their place.

I think you don’t know what personal responsibility or socialism means, there can be no personal responsibility in socialism by definition. Socialism means to socialise, to move things away from the individual and voluntary association scheme of things and bring them into the state controlled and directed scheme of things.

[eternaltriangle]

Lucid, perhaps Lohengram's point would be clearer if put in terms of a tradeoff. All American politicians support some measure of personal responsibility, which is a core American value. All presidents also, to some degree, believe in helping the unfortunate. American political debates often involve clashes between those two values, because it is hard to satisfy both. Thinking about the credit crunch, bailing out banks reinforces the problem of moral hazard, but it has also prevented outright bank failures and resultant suffering.

Obama, faced with that tradeoff, opted for less suffering (at least in the short-term). Is that right or wrong? Well that's really a values question, and I don't think either side can prove that one is morally superior to the other.

One other thing I will say though, is that while Lohengram is accurately describing Obama, the current president is not that far off from his predecessors. When was the last time a president just plain let a bank fail (and anyway, with FDIC it isn't clear letting a bank fail would save taxpayers money)? Hoover, maybe? Who is the last president to respond to a recession largely by pointing out that a recovery will happen anyway? Arguably Bush Sr. but before him you really have to go back to our pal Herbert Hoover. So even if Obama leans more towards "preventing suffering" he is is in keeping with a long history of that (which should not be surprising since "personal responsibility" is a losing campaign theme).

[Lucid]

You’re unaware that there’re thousands of lobbyists in Washington and that millions of dollars are funnelled from wealthy groups to the dominant parties and that his cabinet appointees originate from many of the Banks he is bailing out? You’re unaware of racial and income related quotas in your education system? You’re unaware of Obama’s civilian defence and community service plans? You don’t need links you need to a “welcome to America full course education programme”.

Do I?
I am aware that many of the cabinet appointees originate from some of the banks being bailed out. I am aware that there are thousands of lobbyists in Washington and that there are some racial and income related quotas in our education system. Are you aware of the fact that this has been the case in our system of government for several decades now? I'm sorry, who needed the "welcome to America full course education program"?
Civilian defense and community service plans. These are the "compulsory work programs" of which you spoke? Are you aware of the fact that these are unfounded rumors propagated by crackpots and people who sit in their basements wearing tinfoil shower caps. He was speaking about volunteerism. There's nothing compulsory about them.

Didn’t socialise banks at all? So the government has no ownership stakes in any banks at all? The government has no say in the management and spending plans of any banks? That’s a relief, good thing that there’re people as on the ball as you are in “your country” let’s remember, to keep old ignorant foreigner like me in their place.

If you insist. The government has not exercised any say in the management and spending plans of any banks thus far. Much to the public outrage. The same people who drove the economy into a brick wall are still in charge of the banks who took TARP money (a voluntary action on the part of the banks under the Obama administration) and just took home several million dollars in bonuses each. Now, because there are protested and death threats, congress (and many CEOs) are talking about taking action to take the bonuses back and make them available as lines of credit to private citizens and businesses.
Also, maybe you're unaware of this, but the first bailouts were done under the Bush administration. And it's common practice for the American government to bail out banks, airlines, car companies, etc.

So... “relative to the past" Obama hasn't really done anything unprecedented or even unusual by American standards.

I think you don’t know what personal responsibility or socialism means, there can be no personal responsibility in socialism by definition. Socialism means to socialise, to move things away from the individual and voluntary association scheme of things and bring them into the state controlled and directed scheme of things.

Thank you. I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry that my saying so has offended you, but several of your statements have been completely false and border on paranoid rantings. I think it's just as likely that a citizen of the US might be the same way, and don't think that aspect is at all due to the fact that you are a citizen of the UK.

It is, however, rather hilarious that you got all offended when I suggested that a native might know more about our political system than a non-native, simply due to proximity and saturation... and then proceeded to prove me absolutely correct.

[Lohengram]

In short I'm not responding to you too much, you're saying some things that aren't true but I really don't care. Although calling me a crackpot, about Obama’s plans? Look up any public speech by Rahm Emanuel on the subject, it's not a secret he openly states it in the media. My point was that Obama isn't doing anything to increase personal responsibility and quite the reverse in fact, saying he's doing things similar to the past is true but his are bigger but even if I were to say that it was exactly the same it's not increasing personal responsibility relative to the past it'd be keeping it at the same level. Even by your standards you've given no example of where he increases personal responsibility and I think I've given many of where he has increased the level of government intervention. It's your own childish attempts to try and outsmart me that makes you say I'm saying that Obama is introducing these things into a perfect system. I said Obama was moving from a Corporatist system to a system that's on the brink of Corporatism and Socialism. The USA hasn’t had free markets for a long long time.

[HeyZeus]

I wouldn't presume to rag out the gov't of the UK or any other country because I just don't feel it's my place.

Yes dude, you're coming on a bit strong. Heed the timeless and universal lesson of Jeffrey Lebowski, who said, "that's just...like...your opinion, man."

[Lucid]

In short I'm not responding to you too much, you're saying some things that aren't true but I really don't care. Although calling me a crackpot, about Obama’s plans? Look up any public speech by Rahm Emanuel on the subject, it's not a secret he openly states it in the media. My point was that Obama isn't doing anything to increase personal responsibility and quite the reverse in fact, saying he's doing things similar to the past is true but his are bigger but even if I were to say that it was exactly the same it's not increasing personal responsibility relative to the past it'd be keeping it at the same level. Even by your standards you've given no example of where he increases personal responsibility and I think I've given many of where he has increased the level of government intervention. It's your own childish attempts to try and outsmart me that makes you say I'm saying that Obama is introducing these things into a perfect system. I said Obama was moving from a Corporatist system to a system that's on the brink of Corporatism and Socialism. The USA hasn’t had free markets for a long long time.

I didn't call you anything. I said it was propagated by crackpots. Whether you are one yourself is beyond my knowing.

I think making education, for example, accessible is increasing the level of personal responsibility.

I'm not attempting to outsmart you, I'm correcting you where you're wrong. If you're not saying that he's introducing these things into a perfect system... fine, I never claimed otherwise. But he's not introducing them at all. That's what you don't seem to understand.

If you're going to say I'm making incorrect statements, you should at least do me the courtesy of backing that up.

I'm off to bed. I await your reply if one is forthcoming.

[PeterIMC]

Are you absolutely sure about this bit? There are quite a few countries who would cringe at the prospect of free trade with the US (Thatcher's TAFTA springs to one's mind). Not to mention the GMO ban in the EU that some, and rightly so in my opinion, are adamant about. I'm sure there are also other differences between the US and Europe that are being discussed at the WTO. As for American protectionism, I think, few would object to such protectionist measures as they are being introduced world-wide, Europe included.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but you have to look at it from the "over seas" point of view. The IMF, which is mostly controlled by the USA, always forces countries to cut spending and open their markets in order to get their economies healthy. Now that the USA is having a crisis, what do they do? The exact opposite of what they preach.

Now don't worry, I know that the situations aren't exactly the same and those countries require a real economical culture change as where the USA is relatively healthy in that department.

But what this shows is that the USA is also becoming protective when they´re in trouble. I remember Bush's import taxes to protect american steal business.


and by the way, I'm also Dutch,.. :)

Don't worry too much about the Dutch, I think we come closests to the way americans do business. (but that doesn't mean we agree with everything the USA does.)

[Solus]

Not to be a pain in the ass, but you have to look at it from the "over seas" point of view. The IMF, which is mostly controlled by the USA, always forces countries to cut spending and open their markets in order to get their economies healthy. Now that the USA is having a crisis, what do they do? The exact opposite of what they preach.

(...)

But what this shows is that the USA is also becoming protective when they´re in trouble. I remember Bush's import taxes to protect american steal business.

I think this comes with the territory. If you're strong enough you can lecture others on how they should behave while you yourself can safely deviate from your "recommendations". It's human nature. It's happened before, and it will happen with some future super-power (the EU, China etc.)

and by the way, I'm also Dutch,.. :)

Ik heb opgemerkt dat er enkele nederlanders op dit forum zitten. ;). I've been trying to find INTJ/MBTI forums in French or German but apparently MBTI still hasn't caught on to comparable extent in Europe. It's good to see more Europeans here.

Don't worry too much about the Dutch, I think we come closests to the way americans do business. (but that doesn't mean we agree with everything the USA does.)

Of course not and I agree that the Netherlands is arguably the most atlanticist country on the continent. I see absolutely no problem with that. It is a reasonable strategy.

[kedelfor]

I think Obama has tried to do too much too quickly. I believe he is trying to pull an ol put so much forward and let it get through that by the time we realize what happened it would be too late. I can not support a man or a people that pass a law without reading it. This is rediculous. We elect these officials to work for us and have our best intentions, but then they go and pass laws before reading them.

I also feel he is inexperienced and is an empty suit. The hype of Obama will ware off eventually and when people still have no money, we are more in debt than ever, what is left of our allies abandons us people will want to place blame on someone. It usaully falls to the President. I could ramble on a while, but so far I am not impressed.

[Arcturus]

If you believe in individual responsibility it is mind boggling to me that you support Obama at all let alone be a firm supporter, you should be among his greatest opponents. Obama does nothing to encourage personal responsibility at any level, everything he does says "don't worry the government is here", he is the enemy of personal responsibility and the friend of collectivist action.

Perhaps this reflects my ignorance on the matter, however I do recall a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility during his election victory speech. I would concur, however, that his vocal tactics may seem overly heroic and thus effect a paradoxical response, but: this is just another predictable psychological rationalisation on the part of the people - if he seems like a hero, let him be the hero, even if he said once or twice that you should at least try to be one also (i.e.'it's EASIER not to be a hero').

And yeah, I understand the financial crisis requires government intervention, however if we were (IN TIME) to reduce the magnitude of sheer consumerism, and public dependence thereof, we could do a lot to reduce credit debt. My point is that the public appears to be clinging to an idea of what was, desperately trying to get back there, without asking whether or not it's really necessary. Perhaps the nobler path would involve making the best of the situation, realising that the early 2000s were in fact a period of living BEYOND our means, and perhaps taking the stance of The Architect from Matrix Reloaded: "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." AND, if you want more, use your head and get yourself out instead of crying for the tit.





Arcturus added to this post, 3 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Oh yeah, and Geithner should probably stop heckling China. Even from way over here in Australia, that just looks like a bad move. If anything he should be looking to substantiate relations with the Chinese. Again, however, this may reflect ignorance on my part and if anyone knows any better, please correct me; I am, in fact, interested.

[kedelfor]

Obama is not for personal responsibility. He needs to keep his hands out of peoples lives. The idea that the governemtn needs to step in and help is rediculous. The US is based on the idea that you have the right to try. Obama I feel wants to help those that do not want to help themselves while punishing those that do. People complain about the rich. They are rich for a reason. They spent money, took chances. The way to fight these greedy people is to not buy their product. Let the businesses fail fight them at their own game. Create something better. Oh wait people can't make a better car because emissions are too strict, the unions are too expensive, and the goverment doesn't want a better car for you they want to make more money from "green" technology.

There are way too many regulations on many things and this is what is choking out the idea of a free market. The health care problem can be easily solved if they would put a cap on how much these scum sucking lawyers try to take for malpractice or cause the people to pay all expenses if they where to fail at suing the company. No one would sue then unless they knew it was legit. I have heard jurors say that the person deserves the money and it isn't your money why should you care.

Obama is putting his hands in many things. And the last time the government put there hands in an economic downturn we got something worse. History is repeating itself and it is kind of scary. The idea of change is as good as we need to change. People hated Bush so much they elected this guy.(McCain was not better). During Bush's term unemployment was at one of the lowest ever. It wasn't until his last two years that it started going down. The funny thing is this also coincides of when the Democrats came to power in Congress. It may be a coincidence or it may not. I could go on, and I am sure people here are going to get all up in arms about this, but we need people to fail. Not everyone can succeed. As unfortunate as it may be, but for everyone to succeed we must all fail.

On one last note the idea of being politically correct is another factor causing this great nation to suffer. If I speak out against Obama for his politics some will stand up point and scream racist.

And in defense of our British counter part. I am open to hear what you have to say. When it was Bush in everyone cared what other countries had to say. Even though you are not a US citizen I feel that you are like our brothers. We both died for much of the same thing and if was not for you guys we would not be here.

[qwerty123]

Toot Toot! (From off in the distance)

"Mom what's that?" (Scared tone)

Toot Tooot!

"Son, no need to worry, that's the socialism express."

A few minutes later..

"Toot Tooooot!"

"Mom it’s making a lot of noise, but it doesn't sound much closer." (Still anxious)

"Oh, don't worry son, it's coming. I think it slowed down a little."

CRASH!!!!!

"Mom, what was that!?" (Very anxious)

"Oh, no need to be worried son, the train probably got derailed trying to avoid running over a group of oligarchs. It happens every once in a while. They’ll have it back on track soon.”

“Mom, what are oligarchs?”

“Oh, they run the country, they own the rails, and the train. We’re safe because they’re interested in making the world a better place. Eventually they’ll bring us food and safety, but their needs are more important than ours right now.” (Warm caring motherly tone)

“Mom, couldn’t it be dangerous if they own everything, what if they got selfish? And some of our needs are important.. what if I fell and got hurt? Wouldn’t I need to go see a doctor right away?” (Earnest childhood questioning)

“Son, first of all, its never dangerous to have a small group of powerful people running everything, they’ve all worked very hard to get there, so they must know what they’re doing. Also, your father and I work hard to pay for your health insurance, so you don’t have to worry about getting hurt.” (caring mother)

“But what about the other kids, the ones who don’t have parents who can pay for the doctor?” (Inquisitive son)

“Well son, the train was coming to pick them up, and take them all to the doctor. It’s just going to take a little longer now.”

“That sounds expensive.”

“Oh, it probably will be expensive, but we don’t want to get stuck on something we can’t estimate the cost of. No one really knows how much it will cost. Plus, we’ll reduce the price with new technology, and breakthrough procedures.” (warm mother)

“That sounds like you’ll need a lot of luck.” (son says as a skeptic once again)

“Well we have a good conductor at the wheel now. He overcame a lot to be able to drive the train. Our country hasn’t always liked people like him.”

“What does that have to do with his train driving ability, a crash is a crash?”

“Son, your questions are too much for a boy your age, why don’t you run along and play with your friends?”

[Nemesis]

Leave it alone. The economy will recover in time. Further federal intervention only exacerbates the problem, and leaves our debt inconceivably worse.



Thank you for mentioning this!! I was reading through the posts and was kind of shocked nobody mentioned this earlier. The economy has a nifty way of correcting itself. Very counter-intuitive, but very important point.

[Arcturus]

There will be no recovery this time.
The Golden age is nigh

[theDoc]

I think he has some rad dancing skills ;D

[qwerty123]

There will be no recovery this time.
The Golden age is nigh

I agree. Something will eventually rise again. It will likely not be in our time.

[GraveDancer]

I am glad to see their is such a thing as a smart rebulican. Lately when ever I try to bring up that I think that Obama is doin' a decent job I get shouted down by people claiming he is the antichrist and going in the complete opposite direction then America. This is what I get from moving fromCali to Tex. Sigh.

[Night Runner]

I agree. Something will eventually rise again. It will likely not be in our time.

Depends on how you define "our time." In the worst case scenario, if this crisis is like the Great Depression, things should get better in about 20 years. :) In a more realistic scenario, things will continue going south this year. Nationwide unemployment rate may very well go over 10% (it's currently at 8.5%, unless I'm very mistaken), with states like Michigan reaching 15% or higher (pretty sure it's over 12% there right now). International tensions will increase, with China flexing its muscles and trying to expand its sphere of influence. We may see more hate/desperation crimes - low-tech bank robberies ("I have a gun in my pocket - now gimme all y'all's money!"), shootings directed at certain types of people (like last week's nursing home and immigrant shootings), murder-suicides involving entire families, quite possibly some civil unrest...

We may see beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning...) in 2010. With any luck, things might start improving and approaching pre-recession levels toward the end of Obama's term in the office. If they don't, a candidate who may have been considered a radical wacko under normal conditions may come to power by playing on people's anger and dissatisfaction.

[qwerty123]

Depends on how you define "our time." In the worst case scenario, if this crisis is like the Great Depression, things should get better in about 20 years. :) ......

We may see beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning...) in 2010. With any luck, things might start improving and approaching pre-recession levels toward the end of Obama's term in the office. If they don't, a candidate who may have been considered a radical wacko under normal conditions may come to power by playing on people's anger and dissatisfaction.



I'd generally agree with your assessment, and most of the time I get overly negative, it's from reading too much "news." Right now hopes are very high. Polls show huge confidence in Obama. I know that this is often the case in the early part of a presidency, but I think there may be another factor.

I think that people really want to believe that Obama's team can fix the economy, and many of the popular problems we face. I think that they're running on lots of hope right now (Europe trip and good diplomacy helps). If it drags on for too long, it will lead to despondency (remember his address at like day 64 where he said we need more time... already responding to people questioning when he was going to "fix" things..) It's good overall that people are confident, and have held onto hope. When this starts to slide, I agree with you, we'll start to see many more crimes. Last week's violence was pretty bad.

Still, a grave reality stands. We have mounting national debt with no plan to pay for it. This can only lead to increasing taxes across all people. As I mentioned in my sarcastic piece about the train, I see us speeding toward bigger government (creating these promised jobs) and lower productivity. We have the far right buying guns at a record pace. It's getting stirred up. Obama campaigned on change, and we're getting it.

At least we have the North Koreans for a hint of consistency.

[Tristan]

Still, a grave reality stands. We have mounting national debt with no plan to pay for it. This can only lead to increasing taxes across all people. As I mentioned in my sarcastic piece about the train, I see us speeding toward bigger government (creating these promised jobs) and lower productivity. We have the far right buying guns at a record pace. It's getting stirred up. Obama campaigned on change, and we're getting it.

Frankly, you bring up a point. There is change, and the smart money is buying guns. If you're one of those who thinks the US economy and financials are rotten to the core, then surely you'd agree these bailouts are only enriching the elements that rotted it. Transferring wealth from productive, tax-generating sectors (OR, from thin air in the case of the $1.75 trillion deficit outlay... nothing new about deficit spending, certainly, except for the extra zero this time) to feed a few on Wall street and some favored unions? I suppose I can see the "Hope" part when I pull up some Milton:The world shall burn, and from her ashes spring
New Heaven and Earth, wherein the just shall dwell,
And, after all their tribulations long
See golden days...

[boldbidder]

Any thoughts on Obama's handling of the Somali pirate incident? I personally was pleasantly surprised that he didn't make a big deal of the situation publicly, but quietly worked behind the scenes authorizing the folks on the ground to take action if/when Capt. Phillips was placed in imminent danger.

[phej]

Any thoughts on Obama's handling of the Somali pirate incident? I personally was pleasantly surprised that he didn't make a big deal of the situation publicly, but quietly worked behind the scenes authorizing the folks on the ground to take action if/when Capt. Phillips was placed in imminent danger.

As any president would do... However, piracy around Somalia has been a problem in the last few years. Using military force on the pirates, does set a precedent of the military doing something in this area to the pirates. Whether or not this leads to more military action, I don't know.

[Tenacious B]

Any thoughts on Obama's handling of the Somali pirate incident? I personally was pleasantly surprised that he didn't make a big deal of the situation publicly, but quietly worked behind the scenes authorizing the folks on the ground to take action if/when Capt. Phillips was placed in imminent danger.
What they should is blow every last pirate ship seen into little pieces, shell the harbors, and enjoy a solid 100+ years without piracy.

[Grimstad]

A friend of mine who doesn't pay attention to politics asked me about our new president. I said he's so good he could be the antichrist.
Granted I have a twisted sense of humor but that is truly how I feel. Not that I believe in all that crap but the sentiment is there.
I do find him a little scary.It's hard to believe this guy is for real. How many presidents have hit the ground running like he has. Didn't Bush start his last term with a 6 week vacation? Can you even imagine the load of crap that Bush left him? Sure, he's a politician and he will do what politicians do but still. How does he compare to any other president in the last 50 years? And he's only been in office for 1 quarter. He has already done more for Americas image worldwide than anybody since WW2. That alone is a major accomplishment. Especially after 2 Bush's and a Reagan. For my entire adult lifetime I have said, it's great to be an American, IN America. Not so great elsewhere. He hasn't sugar coated anything. Just tells us like it is and then a little pep talk. And he knows what it will take for us to survive in the 21st century. Not just as a country, but as a race. The human race. But that's just my opinion.

[Tragic Hero]

How does he compare to any other president in the last 50 years? And he's only been in office for 1 quarter.

If he's killed now; in 100 years, historians will be rank him near last. Hasn't been in long enough. Try not to go overboard on him just yet. He has tremendous potential to be a great president, in my opinion; but he's not anywhere near that right now.Also, what didn't you like about Bush Snr?

{Just so people can complain about my choices, I follow with what I think could be the rankings of presidents from Eisenhower through to Bush Jr. according to historians circa 2109.}

Reagan
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Clinton
Johnson
Bush Snr
Nixon
Carter
Bush Jr
Ford


I put this list here so that others may counter with a better list. So please do so.

[Grimstad]

Well, Reagan gets far to much credit for being the one in office when the USSR finally crumbled. Though he did manage to get the Iranian hostages released on the day he was sworn into office. That was a nice slight of hand.
Then Iran Contra. Intensifying of the war on drugs IIRC.
And Bush Sr. was his VP through all of it.
Once a CIA director, always a CIA director.
The one thing Reagan really had going for him was charisma.
Sr. was rather run of the mill.
Then there is how pubs always play off the fears of the religious right.
Yes, I am a little high on Obama right now but one thing he has tried to do all along is try and unify this country, and now that he has the seat, the world.
And if he did get hit right now, I think historians would probably bump him up simply because he hasn't had a chance to thoroughly screw up yet.

[phej]

What they should is blow every last pirate ship seen into little pieces, shell the harbors, and enjoy a solid 100+ years without piracy.

Great. Piracy, the next Terrorism. Terrorism, the next Communism. Communism, the next, uh, my U.S. history doesn't go that far, uh, the next Fascism. And on and on (I also don't remember what came before Fascists, so somebody on this forum will probably pedantically remember)

Anyway, to get rid of the Somali pirates, we'll need to uninstall a Pirate Cities in Somalia and then we'll need to uplift the Per Capita of GDP (but temporarily install Benevolent Dictatorship) so that we can successfully install the Rule of Law, and then after the installation of the Rule of Law, we can install Democracy. Hopefully along the way we don't accidentally install the Malevolent Dictatorship package.

But seriously, this is a complicated situation and bombing the hell out of Somalia or every ship is not a solution. (It may feel good, but that's not a good reason)





phej added to this post, 8 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Somali Lawlessness == Terrorists. So the They will probably link the Somali Pirates to Terrorists...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PeterIMC]

What they should is blow every last pirate ship seen into little pieces, shell the harbors, and enjoy a solid 100+ years without piracy.

Yes that would solve all your problems. Just throwing bombs. You must be really sad that Bush is no longer president,.. :)

[Rudy]

Yes that would solve all your problems. Just throwing bombs. You must be really sad that Bush is no longer president,.. :)

I fail to see how thinking that pirates should be killed connects to one liking Bush... ?

[phej]

I fail to see how thinking that pirates should be killed connects to one liking Bush... ?

Simple, lots-o-people make assumptions about the world and connect things that shouldn't be connected together. Conventional Wisdom is awesome...

[Solus]

For my entire adult lifetime I have said, it's great to be an American, IN America.

Well, if Obama is anything to go by, it's great to be an American outside Ameica too. I'm usually suspicious of politicians but Obama is increasingly impressive. What a stark contrast he is to this statesman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Narcissism at its worst I guess.

[eternaltriangle]

I do find him a little scary.It's hard to believe this guy is for real. How many presidents have hit the ground running like he has. Didn't Bush start his last term with a 6 week vacation? Can you even imagine the load of crap that Bush left him? Sure, he's a politician and he will do what politicians do but still. How does he compare to any other president in the last 50 years? And he's only been in office for 1 quarter. He has already done more for Americas image worldwide than anybody since WW2. That alone is a major accomplishment. Especially after 2 Bush's and a Reagan. For my entire adult lifetime I have said, it's great to be an American, IN America. Not so great elsewhere. He hasn't sugar coated anything. Just tells us like it is and then a little pep talk. And he knows what it will take for us to survive in the 21st century. Not just as a country, but as a race. The human race. But that's just my opinion.

1. He (or his party) practically has a filibuster-proof majority in congress. Of course he can get a lot of stuff done. Despite that he has lost a large number of high-profile cabinet nominees due to various scandals.

2. Isn't it a bit premature to argue that he has any accomplishments. His legislation has to succeed before we can make that claim. I suppose he has made the records for the deficit and spending.

3. What tangible results has the improvement in America's image abroad garnered (Obama got almost no additional troop contributions on Afghanistan and fought the French tooth and tail at the G-20 summit? I suppose it might get easier for Americans to get laid in Europe.

4. As for telling it like it is, my god have you ever swigged the Kool-Aid. Obama's precise position on Iraq has changed constantly since he was a primary candidate. In January Obama warned that if his stimulus was not passed there will be a catastrophe. Today (keep in mind that the impact of his stimulus isn't being felt yet) he is optimistic (after about 100 days he can't blame Bush any more). Obama is largely keeping the Bush anti-terrorism apparatus together - for instance keeping the wiretapping in place which he once promised to get rid of.

Obama is just another politician. He isn't a bad guy, but he ain't Jesus either.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

(the congressional Republicans are now polling in a tie with the Dems, and have regained substantial strength on a number of issues, if you want a metric of how Obama's policies are going down - though Obama does remain personally popular, if polarizing).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

Actually, on the topic of the economy, the Dems still lead the GOP according to Gallup. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 51% to 38%.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eternaltriangle]

Actually, on the topic of the economy, the Dems still lead the GOP according to Gallup. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 51% to 38%.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gallup and Rasmussen will tend to lean in one direction or the other (this is based on whether they screen for likely voters, and the allocation of leaners), but I was not saying the GOP leads on the economy, I was saying they are gaining ground. What was that gap like in January?

The GOP usually loses on the economy in polls, but makes up ground on national security, moral issues and taxes.

[phej]

Actually, on the topic of the economy, the Dems still lead the GOP according to Gallup. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 51% to 38%.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Dems may lead, but believe it or not, Obama is more polarizing than Bush:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[boldbidder]

The Dems may lead, but believe it or not, Obama is more polarizing than Bush:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bush didn't have books written about him being the anti-Christ, loads of whisper and e-mail campaigns proclaiming he is a Muslim, nor did evoke the same fear among the populace that he might start some form of white slavery. Obama's polarization has little to do with his policies as much as it has to do with his appearance and the great pains that many of the psycho-conservatives have gone through in order to scare the 'Joe Six Packs' of the country.

[nacht]

The Dems may lead, but believe it or not, Obama is more polarizing than Bush:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Only if you define "polarizing" as "has less support from the opposing party and more support from your own party." Clinton had as much support from Republicans as Obama does, but had less support from Democrats. Bush had as much support from Republicans as Obama does from democrats, but had more support among democrats (mind you, we're using "support" in the loosest possible sense as a function of approval ratings *at the same point in their presidencies*). If a president engenders low support from both parties I would argue that they could still be quite polarizing, but that doesn't show up in this statistic. This is especially true given margins of error.

I think a more accurate term is that he is a more polarized figure due to the factors already mentioned, but that the analysis presented for this case is somewhat sketchy and that doesn't mean that it stems *from* Obama.

[nacht]

Moderator note: This post and the reply to it were moved here from the Obama an INTJ? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thread

********************

It took me a bit to do some fact checking here.

In his first 100 days as president, he has the lowest approval ratings in history.

I'm really curious for the source on this one.

Let's try this list (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which places the approval ratings after 100 days at:

Kennedy: 83%
Johnson: 80%
Eisenhower: 73%
Reagan: 68%
Carter: 63%
Nixon: 62%
W. Bush: 57.5%
H. W. Bush: 56%
Clinton: 55%
Ford: 48%

This has a median value of 62.5%. The gallup poll (which is what these are based on_ between 4/22 and 4/24 is at 66% (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Even taking the average of polls, or going strictly with the pollsters who give the least charitable results, we are well clear of Ford's 48%. Even factoring out Ford, none of the polls have been outside of the margin of error of Clinton's 55% or Bush's 56%, and we have reason to suspect some of those polls (e.g., Zogby (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) have a systematic bias. Even including that, the average has been around or slightly above 60%, which is slightly on the low-side of the middle.

See also, The First 100 Days (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) over at Pollster, which states that "What do we make of President Obama's first 100 days? The answer is that he falls within the norm."

So, again: Any more empty, wrong, and easily debunked assertions you care to make?

[Shadowstar]

Obama Speech Writer: Jon Favreau; in 2009, Favreau was named to serve in President Barack Obama's White House as Director of Speechwriting. Jon Favreau is noted as having come up with the popular Obama quote, "Yes, We Can"
This kid was responsible for almost every speech that was written and used by Obama. He also edits other speeches. Obama has never written and used his own speech since becoming president. Please note that I got this information from liberal sources, such as Time Magazine and MSNBC.

Teleprompter: I will certainly agree that Obama is one of the most skilled presidents to ever use a teleprompter. However, the few times he has given a speech without a teleprompter he is completely different. He stumbles over his words; he speaks without his normal poise. He is horrible without a teleprompter; therefore you will likely never see him without. That means his speechwriter (the guy who writes his speeches, because he does not write his own) can prepare an amazing well thought-out and heavily scrutinized speech for him to deliver.

Iraq: "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011" this is a quote from Obama. Obama recently revealed that between 35,000 and 50,000 troops will remain inside Iraq beyond 2011. The democrat controlled senate is very angry at this decision. Because Obama misled and lied to everyone, including his allies. Interesting....

I saw you left out Gitmo, so I’ll assume you know I’m right on that point.

Poll Numbers: The honeymoon is over, according to a national poll out today as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”

The poll, released this afternoon, shows the president’s “excellent or good” job performance rating hitting 49 percent, down 3 points from a March 5 Zogby poll.

Good job using a poll from MSNBC

Just read an AP report: the percentage of Americans that think the country is on the right track rose to 48% in March as compared to 40% in February. In light of the unemployment rising, the debacle in foreign affairs etc, I found it unlikely. So I looked into the details of the poll.

73% of the Democrats polled thought we were on the right track
17% of Independents
10% of Republicans

That made it even more suspicious as to how those numbers could result in a 48% overall right track vote.


So digging deeper, it turns out

36% of those polled were Democrats
18% Republican
26% Independent
18% None claimed

In the 2008 election the spread between Democrats and Republicans was 6.5 percentage points not 18 and independents made up 22% of the vote not 26%.

It appears that there have been similar distortions in the various polls measuring Obama's approval ratings.





Did you have anything else to add, other than your CNN/MSNBC talking points?

Would you like to discuss whose shoulders the Fannie Mac and economic recession fall on? Who is really at fault? Let me know if you want to get into a hard fact discussion of those issues.

And why is Obama trying to disown the current deficit? His party is responsible for it. We can go into that also if you would like.

Also, why is massive govt spending going to help correct the current recession? I would love to go over some economic facts with you regarding that.

The problem with you liberals is that you don't like to use facts; you prefer to distort the truth, or to make generalizations. Let’s put some facts on the table and continue this discussion.

[nacht]

Obama Speech Writer: Jon Favreau; in 2009, Favreau was named to serve in President Barack Obama's White House as Director of Speechwriting. Jon Favreau is noted as having come up with the popular Obama quote, "Yes, We Can"
This kid was responsible for almost every speech that was written and used by Obama. He also edits other speeches. Obama has never written and used his own speech since becoming president. Please note that I got this information from liberal sources, such as Time Magazine and MSNBC.


:rolleyes: Yes, every politician uses a speech writer, and Obama is no exception. That isn't new. It seems, however, that Obama has been more involved in writing his own speeches than many previous presidents, especially many of the ones given during his campaign.

See also, How Obama Writes His Speeches (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and In His Candidate’s Voice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about Favreau, it says: "'What I do is to sit with him for half an hour,' Favreau explains. 'He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That's how we get a finished product.'"

So yes, Obama uses a speech writer. Next you're going to tell me that the sky is blue.

That doesn't mean he isn't involved, and it doesn't mean he doesn't also help in the writing of his own material.


Teleprompter: I will certainly agree that Obama is one of the most skilled presidents to ever use a teleprompter. However, the few times he has given a speech without a teleprompter he is completely different. He stumbles over his words; he speaks without his normal poise.


Did you watch the debates, at all? Or many of his interviews?

He is slower in speech in those circumstances and he does stumble, but he is not "horrible." This change, incidentally, is one of the signs that he may be an introvert.



Iraq: "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011" this is a quote from Obama. Obama recently revealed that between 35,000 and 50,000 troops will remain inside Iraq beyond 2011. The democrat controlled senate is very angry at this decision. Because Obama misled and lied to everyone, including his allies. Interesting....


You do realize that the plan was admitted--when Obama announced it at the end of february--to be contingent on "conditions on the ground," and that the full plan comes with a massive set of qualifiers.

This is also completely consistent with everything he said during the campaign, see also his own editorial on the topic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which indicated that there would be "After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions."

Your biases are showing.



I saw you left out Gitmo, so I’ll assume you know I’m right on that point.


You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I left a link to Promise No. 177: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). That's "in the works," because it's not something you just "shut down tomorrow."

They haven't figured out what they are going to do with all of the prisoners, but that's a far cry from saying that they aren't going to shut it down.


Poll Numbers: The honeymoon is over, according to a national poll out today as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.


1) You need to use citations. You are vaguely handwaving about this poll, but in truth I haven't seen any polls that make that claim except for a single incident of a Zogby internet poll from quite some time ago.
2) You are--and this is being charitable and assuming you actually have a source for this nonsense--cherry picking your results. If you don't understand why this is important than we need to have a remedial talk about how statistics work. Pollster places the average of the polls at 59.4%. The last Rasmussen poll (5/2-4) came in at 56% approval, the last Gallup poll (5/1-3) places it at 67%.

Meanwhile we can note that the percent that think the economy is "poor" has been steadily declining (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Obama's favorability ratings are at 65% (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and the number of people who think the country is headed in the "right direction" is at 43% and steadily climbing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

In short, you are not just wrong, you are making this up out of whole cloth as you go.



The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”


desperation, noun.

Can't you come up with anything better than this?


The poll, released this afternoon, shows the president’s “excellent or good” job performance rating hitting 49 percent, down 3 points from a March 5 Zogby poll.


Oh yes, you are using Zogby. Again, charitably, you are cherry picking. Never mind that Zogby has a well established systematic bias due to a lack of a random sample. See also, Worst Pollster In the World Strikes Again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and The "Loopy" Zogby Polls (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (which states that "Zogby has long been known for refusing to use sound methods in designing his samples").

Do you want to have a remedial talk about statistics and how not to read the results of an individual poll when you have multiple other sources, along with the various factors that can bias a poll?


Good job using a poll from MSNBC


I'm using Gallup and Rasmussen, along with the aggregate of all polls from Pollster, and the MSNBC link was using Gallup as well, not MSNBC's poll numbers, but thanks for playing.


Just read an AP report: the percentage of Americans that think the country is on the right track rose to 48% in March as compared to 40% in February. In light of the unemployment rising, the debacle in foreign affairs etc, I found it unlikely. So I looked into the details of the poll.
[...]
It appears that there have been similar distortions in the various polls measuring Obama's approval ratings.


I think you have just conclusively demonstrated that you don't know how to read poll results.

Party identification as Republicans has been declining (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and turnout in an election says exactly jack-all about the overall spread of a population, which is what most of the approval ratings are based on. One is not a representative sample of the other. Depending on how they phrase the question, there are numerous ways that the party identification result can vary without actually making it anything other than a random sample of the population.


Did you have anything else to add, other than your CNN/MSNBC talking points?


Reality has a well known liberal bias.


Would you like to discuss whose shoulders the Fannie Mac and economic recession fall on? Who is really at fault? Let me know if you want to get into a hard fact discussion of those issues.


You might want to try figuring out what party I am before asking me to defend the wrongs of either party. Hint, I am registered to vote, and it isn't with the Democrats.


And why is Obama trying to disown the current deficit? His party is responsible for it. We can go into that also if you would like.


Who has been in charge of the White House for the last 8 years and Congress for 6 of the last 8 years?

National debt by president (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Deficit or Surplus by President (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


You are getting farther and farther off topic with all of this ranting, I do hope you realize that.


The problem with you liberals is that you don't like to use facts; you prefer to distort the truth, or to make generalizations. Let’s put some facts on the table and continue this discussion.

Point 1: I am not a "liberal."
Point 2: The facts, such as they are, have been against you in pretty much every point you have made.

[Krazy P]

Not to take a good debate in another direction, I will state some very recent events that are extremely troubling to me.

One is the meeting with the bankers in which it was quoted he said, "I am the only thing between you and the pitchforks." I kind of blew that off as hyperbole - but later it was verified that he did say that (my sources in the banking community). That says a lot - none of it good.

Two is the Chrysler deal putting unsecured creditors above secured creditors (bad) and then threatening those who didn't want to play ball (scary). In case you don't know the line that was crossed here - it is a big one. In my entire career I have never seen anything like this. Nobody that I know in the business community has either or heard of anything like this. A game-changer. I have had government folks threaten me - but not to break my fiduciary responsibility.

Three is the issue re tax "loopholes" for companies doing business overseas. The policy as described by Obama is crazy. It is sort of like reverse protectionism. "I am going to make it harder for any US company to compete by taxing them in a way that no other country does." Even the D's know this is crazy.

So, troubled is what I am. Very troubled.

Of course the $540 shoes and the NYC buzzing are dumb. I know a lot of millionaires and a few billionaires and they don't buy $540 tennis shoes. People who do that are... what? Have issues with self-esteem? I'm not sure.

But to think you wouldn't be noticed wearing them? Hell, I worry about everything I wear when I go out in public - and I am just a CEO of a medium sized company. Everything you wear and everything you do, every smile, nod and grimace is being watched.

Every gesture (gift-giving?) is noted.

This is going to be interesting - and not in a good way, I am afraid. I am glad I don't live in a big city. Unfortunately my kids do.

[Tristan]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. April 28 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., operating with $15.4 billion in U.S. aid, would be at least half owned by the U.S. government under the automaker’s plan to slash its debt and cut dealer ranks more than 40 percent. The proposal, if accepted by the Obama administration, would give the Treasury at least half of the 60 billion shares in a reorganized GM, the automaker said yesterday. The U.S. would join European and Chinese governments in holding stakes in local automakers. “Political economics are now part of the economy in the U.S.,” said Sean McAlinden, a labor analyst and economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “They are going to control more of GM than the government of Lower Saxony owns of Volkswagen or France owns in Renault.” The U.S. may end up as the biggest shareholder in the nation’s largest automaker by converting $10 billion of its loans into equity. The government gets preferential treatment over other GM creditors because its loans are secured by assets while the $27.5 billion in bond debt is unsecured. Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson, installed by the Obama administration after his predecessor was asked to resign, needs the debt reduction and savings so GM can restructure outside of court and not be forced into bankruptcy in 34 days.

Government Power

The government has held veto power over GM expenditures of more than $100 million since a December rescue. The U.S. removed former CEO Rick Wagoner last month, named director Kent Kresa as chairman and told him to replace a majority of the 11 directors. GM said that existing equity holders, with 610.5 million shares outstanding, will own about 1 percent of the restructured company on a pro-forma basis, after about 60 billion more shares are issued. Bondholders would get 10 percent of the new stock. The U.S. and the United Auto Workers union would divide the remaining 89 percent, with at least 50 percent owned by the government, Henderson said. France owns about 15 percent of Renault SA and the state of Lower Saxony, where Volkswagen AG’s Wolfsburg, Germany, headquarters is located, owns a 20.1 percent stake in that carmaker. Shanghai Auto Industry Corp., which is 100 percent city-government owned, has an 84 percent stake in SAIC Motor Corp., according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

U.S. Role

The role of the U.S. in GM is to develop a plan whereby the automaker can be self-reliant and not need federal aid to survive, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday. “This administration and this government have no desire to run an auto company on a day-to-day basis,” he said. GM needs to cut liabilities so it can keep its current U.S. loans and borrow as much as $11.6 billion more. Under the survival plan outlined yesterday, GM will deepen its dealer cuts to 42 percent by 2010, from a planned 34 percent reduction by 2014. The proposal for a government ownership stake is still under review. “What we’re starting to see again is the government beginning to act as if it is a business,” U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter, a Michigan Republican, said in yesterday in a Bloomberg Radio interview. “They are continuing to expand into the role of what the companies have traditionally done.”

‘Private-Equity Model’

Henderson said the government wants GM to develop a viable plan to ensure taxpayers get repaid in the case of government loans or get a good return in the case of equity. “The process they are using actually is more of a private- equity model for how the business governance should work and not necessarily how we should run the business day-to-day,” he said on a conference call with analysts yesterday. GM fell 23 cents, or 11 percent, to $1.81 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares soared 21 percent yesterday for the biggest increase since March 13. GM’s 8.375 percent bonds due in July 2033 dropped 1.5 cents to 9 cents on the dollar, yielding 91.1 percent, according to Trace, the bond-pricing service of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The automaker’s cuts are designed to ensure profitability in a U.S. market with sales of as few as 10 million autos, 13 percent lower than previously projected. The annual sales rate was 9.9 million in March, after GM said Feb. 17 its break-even target was an industry sales rate of 11.5 million to 12 million. Losses have totaled $82 billion since 2004, GM’s last profitable year, pushing the company to the brink of collapse before then-President George W. Bush approved the first installment of emergency U.S. loans in December. “Government ownership wasn’t done by design, but by default,” said Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California at Berkeley. “It transcends the debate about government ownership, because it’s necessary to rescue the industry, and I think the government has no long-term goal to control the automakers.” McCotter said it’s not a good practice to have industry run by so-called car czars, and supports a quick U.S. exit. “Historically, we know what happened to the czar,” he said. “I don’t know why anyone would want to follow in those footsteps.”
I admit I only had mild suspicions, several months ago, that that the President would attempt to import Chicago-style racketeering to Washington. But this is how John Stroger's political machine worked in Cook County. The political boss basically flushes the jobs of his allied constituency (UAW in this case) with taxpayer money in direct return for their patronage. I had no idea that Obama would be so swift, full-scale, and blatant with it. I mean, look at how he treated to the company's private-sector bondholders!! People with whom I had confided my suspicions about the Chicago racketeering possibility said it was guilt by association--that Obama is not a "true" Chicago politician-- and not to worry. I honestly wish they had been right, because to hell with waterboarding and surveillance... THIS is what truly dangerous executive power looks like. Tyrannies are not built on sinister thought police and Room 101's, but on the seizure of society's architecture for palatable platitudes like "the greater good." In that Berkeley guy's words from the article, "it’s necessary."

Reality has a well known liberal bias.Must be why it has such low approval ratings.

[boldbidder]

Anyone see Obama's speech at the White House correspondence dinner? Thought it was pretty damn funny, particularly the digs into his own administration. A lil self deprecation is a good thing I think.

[curiousgeorge01]

I think he is a showman. I mean he talks a good game, but if you look at what he's actually doing, its obvious he wasn't well schooled in Economics. The banking crisis is actually a fairly simple problem to solve but so far he hasn't been able to dot it!

[nacht]

I think he is a showman. I mean he talks a good game, but if you look at what he's actually doing, its obvious he wasn't well schooled in Economics. The banking crisis is actually a fairly simple problem to solve but so far he hasn't been able to dot it!

What, precisely, makes you think the banking crisis is a "fairly simple problem to solve?"

Especially when we consider that this is government: figuring out how to add two numbers--if they come from different agencies--is a nontrivial problem in and of itself.

[axe rive]

Please give us one peice of evidence he is delivering us any closer to solcialism. I can give several that he is correcting seriouse breaches in our freedoms from the last 8 years.

Please do. And please provide the specific Constitutional Ammendmants citing the freedoms you mention that have been breached. I'd like to check the original script. Forgive me if I'm not one to go along with the whole "you have a right to be happy" and "they can't do that without the approval of the people" song and dance. You might be surprised how many "freedoms" aren't guaranteed.

I see Obama as the new Jimmy Carter; he'll end up doing almost nothing but being remembered as a good guy who healed the country simply by not being the last guy. However, he is my President and I will do what I can to support him through his term. My power is in my vote; bitching about him and refusing to step up and help doesn't accomplish anything (see previous 8 years).

[curiousgeorge01]

What, precisely, makes you think the banking crisis is a "fairly simple problem to solve?"

Especially when we consider that this is government: figuring out how to add two numbers--if they come from different agencies--is a nontrivial problem in and of itself.


Well the real problem is two fold, getting rid of toxic assets, and providing banks with liquidity and increasing credit so banks can lend out the money. After some thinking, this can be easily solved by forcibly lowering long term rates and current mortgages (all existing ones, and believe me, the government can do this) and by locating the forclosures and auctioning those homes off (which isn't all that difficult, you just need to narrow down the database by looking at who hasn't paid for at least 6 months.) Instead everyone seems to be beating around the bush and printing out tons of money, which long term, actually decreases everyone's wealth. You need to increase people's wealth to get out of this! Oh BTW, you can expect inflation to be coming very soon, this is going to be a repeat of the Carter years of stagflation...go Obama!





curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 3 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Please do. And please provide the specific Constitutional Ammendmants citing the freedoms you mention that have been breached. I'd like to check the original script. Forgive me if I'm not one to go along with the whole "you have a right to be happy" and "they can't do that without the approval of the people" song and dance. You might be surprised how many "freedoms" aren't guaranteed.

I see Obama as the new Jimmy Carter; he'll end up doing almost nothing but being remembered as a good guy who healed the country simply by not being the last guy. However, he is my President and I will do what I can to support him through his term. My power is in my vote; bitching about him and refusing to step up and help doesn't accomplish anything (see previous 8 years).

That's funny about the Carter years that you mentioned, I just said the same thing LOL. Now all we're missing is an Iran hostage crisis..

[qwerty123]

Anyone see Obama's speech at the White House correspondence dinner? Thought it was pretty damn funny, particularly the digs into his own administration. A lil self deprecation is a good thing I think.


I laughed for sure. It is a good leadership trait. I think we'll start to see more comedians holding office. (Thinks of Michigan.)

Someone said "Politics is entertainment, and entertainment is politics."

[Solus]

I laughed for sure. It is a good leadership trait. I think we'll start to see more comedians holding office.

Absolutely. "Comedian" is the word I would most certainly associate with Barack Obama. What a contrast he is to the previous occupant of the White House who was more of a melancholic, and intellectual sort of statesman. You can't help but notice how times have changed...

[nacht]

Well the real problem is two fold, getting rid of toxic assets, and providing banks with liquidity and increasing credit so banks can lend out the money. After some thinking, this can be easily solved by forcibly lowering long term rates and current mortgages (all existing ones, and believe me, the government can do this) and by locating the forclosures and auctioning those homes off (which isn't all that difficult, you just need to narrow down the database by looking at who hasn't paid for at least 6 months.) Instead everyone seems to be beating around the bush and printing out tons of money, which long term, actually decreases everyone's wealth. You need to increase people's wealth to get out of this! Oh BTW, you can expect inflation to be coming very soon, this is going to be a repeat of the Carter years of stagflation...go Obama!


If you think that this is all "simple" then I have a few shares of a bridge I would like to sell you....

Absolutely. "Comedian" is the word I would most certainly associate with Barack Obama. What a contrast he is to the previous occupant of the White House who was more of a melancholic, and intellectual sort of statesman. You can't help but notice how times have changed...

You call George W. Bush's "cowboy" administration "intellectual"? Some selective editing is going on here...

Obama is substantially more of an intellectual than George W. Bush, this was even one of the criticisms used against him in the campaign.

[JohnDoe]

Not to take a good debate in another direction, I will state some very recent events that are extremely troubling to me.

One is the meeting with the bankers in which it was quoted he said, "I am the only thing between you and the pitchforks." I kind of blew that off as hyperbole - but later it was verified that he did say that (my sources in the banking community). That says a lot - none of it good.

Two is the Chrysler deal putting unsecured creditors above secured creditors (bad) and then threatening those who didn't want to play ball (scary). In case you don't know the line that was crossed here - it is a big one. In my entire career I have never seen anything like this. Nobody that I know in the business community has either or heard of anything like this. A game-changer. I have had government folks threaten me - but not to break my fiduciary responsibility.


I'll be honest. This scares the fuck out of me. Obama is great for trading, but theres a whole slew of the market I wouldn't invest in just because I'm afraid he'd pull some crazy nonsense like this, and while its fun to make all sorts of profits off of the volatility he is making, its incredibly bad for the economy for the government to be threatening secured creditors. Because people will not invest if they think that the government is going to change basic rules of the game. And senior creditors taking priority is a basic rule of the game. And without investment the ability to finance new products is going to grind to a halt.

Edit: anyone see the new budget deficit numbers? Apparently his first round was dramatically too low.

[Solus]

You call George W. Bush's "cowboy" administration "intellectual"? Some selective editing is going on here...

Obama is substantially more of an intellectual than George W. Bush, this was even one of the criticisms used against him in the campaign.

Come on, nacht. There was a consensus on the planet that George W. was too good to be true. There are countries out there where people organised petitions for him to be allowed to run for another term in office.

Am I still being too subtle?

[boldbidder]

Absolutely. "Comedian" is the word I would most certainly associate with Barack Obama. What a contrast he is to the previous occupant of the White House who was more of a melancholic, and intellectual sort of statesman. You can't help but notice how times have changed...

Huh? George W. Bush an intellectual and a statesman? You can't be serious, Bush 41 as a statesman I get, but Bush 43?! Does not compute.

[curiousgeorge01]

Huh? George W. Bush an intellectual and a statesman? You can't be serious, Bush 41 as a statesman I get, but Bush 43?! Does not compute.

If you think that this is all "simple" then I have a few shares of a bridge I would like to sell you....



You call George W. Bush's "cowboy" administration "intellectual"? Some selective editing is going on here...

Obama is substantially more of an intellectual than George W. Bush, this was even one of the criticisms used against him in the campaign.


Honestly I don't think its as hard as it sounds. The solution is simple but yes I agree the implementation would be more difficult. But I certainly don't think its as crazy as printing 2 trillion to stop the problem! There, we haven't stopped the toxic mortgages portion nor have we freed up liquidity. Plus he's president, he should have the balls to do it!

You know whats funny is that after I thought up that solution, a Harvard Professor of Economic History said the exact same thing. But he said its not likely to happen because Obama plays the game like most politicians. Aren't leaders supposed to be bold and offer bold and pragmatic solutions?

[nacht]

Honestly I don't think its as hard as it sounds. The solution is simple but yes I agree the implementation would be more difficult. But I certainly don't think its as crazy as printing 2 trillion to stop the problem! There, we haven't stopped the toxic mortgages portion nor have we freed up liquidity. Plus he's president, he should have the balls to do it.


You do realize "implementation" is why this is so difficult, right? Even if everyone agreed in principle--which they don't--they still have to figure out how to implement it and, in the meantime, they have shorter term concerns.


You know whats funny is that after I thought up that solution, a Harvard Professor of Economic History said the exact same thing.

Gotta love that appeal to anonymous authority.

[Solus]

Huh? George W. Bush an intellectual and a statesman? You can't be serious, Bush 41 as a statesman I get, but Bush 43?! Does not compute.

You are right. I'm not serious. Sorry about that. Where I come from my two above posts would stand a pretty good chance of being categorised as not serious, if not amusing. I guess leaving appropriate smileys would have helped. Apologies to you and nacht for the confusion my comments have caused.

I saw Obama's speech you referred to above and I was (again) impressed with this guy. He is just too good to be true. When he was in France / Germany in April he was treated, and rightly so, like a superstar. Clinton also used to be popular, but Obama, at least to me, definitely feels more intellectual.

[JohnDoe]

You are right. I'm not serious. Sorry about that. Where I come from my two above posts would stand a pretty good chance of being categorised as not serious, if not amusing. I guess leaving appropriate smileys would have helped. Apologies to you and nacht for the confusion my comments have caused.

I saw Obama's speech you referred to above and I was (again) impressed with this guy. He is just too good to be true. When he was in France / Germany in April he was treated, and rightly so, like a superstar. Clinton also used to be popular, but Obama, at least to me, definitely feels more intellectual.

Giving a speech does not make you a competent policy maker. Conversely being bad at giving speeches does not make you a horrible policy maker.

[Solus]

Of course it doesn't. However, after eight years of bad speeches which were reflected in equally bad policies, it is refreshing to see someone who can give good speeches. Whether the other part of the equation will also work remains to be seen though I see no reason why it shouldn't.

[JohnDoe]

Of course it doesn't. However, after eight years of bad speeches which were reflected in equally bad policies, it is refreshing to see someone who can give good speeches. Whether the other part of the equation will also work remains to be seen though I see no reason why it shouldn't.

As opposed to the guy who wants to dramatically increase taxes on every investment and every corp profit during a depression.

[Solus]

It would have been much easier for Obama had he inherited an economy in a better shape from his predecessor as well as a slightly less intimidating budget deficit. I suppose this is, in part, because the Bush's tax cuts didn't do the trick. Not to mention that Bush's predecessor left him a budget in surplus. I sympathise with Obama who has to contemplate unpopular measures in a difficult situation which is not of his doing. We'll see how he handles it. I'm quite optimistic because on some other policy issues such as Iraq, Afganistan, Cuba, Iran, nuclear weapons, human rights etc. he has presented some very interesting ideas which I hope he will be able to carry out.

[laserist]

Absolutely. "Comedian" is the word I would most certainly associate with Barack Obama. What a contrast he is to the previous occupant of the White House who was more of a melancholic, and intellectual sort of statesman. You can't help but notice how times have changed...

GWB was "intellectual"? What color is the sky in your world?





laserist added to this post, 19 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Giving a speech does not make you a competent policy maker. Conversely being bad at giving speeches does not make you a horrible policy maker.

Oh come on, being a competent policy maker is more than getting credit for signing what your staff put in front of you. Were there bright people in the previous administration? Yes. Was everything a home run without negative implications? No. Are there bright people in the current administration? Yes. Are you Monday morning quarterback's a pain in the ass? Oh yeah...

[curiousgeorge01]

You do realize "implementation" is why this is so difficult, right? Even if everyone agreed in principle--which they don't--they still have to figure out how to implement it and, in the meantime, they have shorter term concerns.



Gotta love that appeal to anonymous authority.

sigh* yes I do realize implementation is what makes it so difficult. But like I said if you were able to get the government to print that much money than you should be able to implement that idea. With Obama's 'speaking skills' he shouldn't have a problem getting constituents to agree to the idea. So what are you saying, just because implementation is difficult we shouldn't do it? That just sounds half assed and I fail to see you point.

Well I don't have the particular interest to look up the guy's name and I'm not appealing to authority. I just read it in passing in Time and it struck me that other people have thought of the idea. Meaning either Obama hasn't thought of the idea or he's just too closed minded to implement it.

[JohnDoe]

It would have been much easier for Obama had he inherited an economy in a better shape from his predecessor as well as a slightly less intimidating budget deficit. I suppose this is, in part, because the Bush's tax cuts didn't do the trick. Not to mention that Bush's predecessor left him a budget in surplus. I sympathise with Obama who has to contemplate unpopular measures in a difficult situation which is not of his doing. We'll see how he handles it. I'm quite optimistic because on some other policy issues such as Iraq, Afganistan, Cuba, Iran, nuclear weapons, human rights etc. he has presented some very interesting ideas which I hope he will be able to carry out.

Oh please Obama has just been constantly ratcheting up the spending. Hes 50x worse then Bush for the deficit.

[Henry]

Oh please Obama has just been constantly ratcheting up the spending. Hes 50x worse then Bush for the deficit.

If you ignore economic growth numbers, he's running about 4xs "as worse" as Bush, and I love how so many "IN" types - allegedly the intellectually brightest of all types - rush to assume that deficits are always bad.

Deficits are not "good" or "bad". Deficits are a mechanism that turn savings into demand. During times of a reasonable balance of demand and long-run capacity, running deficits will slow growth by slowing addition to the capital stock, and cause inflation with few gains in output, which most would consider "bad". When there's an excess of savings/capital relative to demand and you have unemployment approaching 10%, deficits serve to create jobs and recycle excess savings back into demand for little in the way of inflation, which most would consider "good".

[JohnDoe]

If you ignore economic growth numbers, he's running about 4xs "as worse" as Bush, and I love how so many "IN" types - allegedly the intellectually brightest of all types - rush to assume that deficits are always bad.

Deficits are not "good" or "bad". Deficits are a mechanism that turn savings into demand. During times of a reasonable balance of demand and long-run capacity, running deficits will slow growth by slowing addition to the capital stock, and cause inflation with few gains in output, which most would consider "bad". When there's an excess of savings/capital relative to demand and you have unemployment approaching 10%, deficits serve to create jobs and recycle excess savings back into demand for little in the way of inflation, which most would consider "good".
But if you intend to pay for deficits by raising taxes, you run the risk of killing the growth your trying to stimulate. This is the problem. I don't mind paying taxes, but I am very concerned about the pure number of tax increases slated to hit us over the next few years. In fact you could easily get into stagflation.

[Henry]

But if you intend to pay for deficits by raising taxes, you run the risk of killing the growth your trying to stimulate.

You're bringing up another mantra - that tax hikes always slow growth. They don't, they slow aggregate demand and increase savings. This is a positive event if you are at the upward end of a business cycle, as it can prevent an inflation while making additions to the capital stock.

Actually paying down a deficit is not a good idea unless you're in an inflation; really the best you can hope for is a balanced budget that's shrinking as a percentage of GDP

[JohnDoe]

You're bringing up another mantra - that tax hikes always slow growth. They don't, they slow aggregate demand and increase savings. This is a positive event if you are at the upward end of a business cycle, as it can prevent an inflation while making additions to the capital stock.

Actually paying down a deficit is not a good idea unless you're in an inflation; really the best you can hope for is a balanced budget that's shrinking as a percentage of GDP

It is however a very negative event if your economy has just crashed. It can be positive to control bubbles. We do not have a bubble problem right now.

Edit: Increasing savings is the last thing we want to do right now.

[Henry]

It is however a very negative event if your economy has just crashed. It can be positive to control bubbles. We do not have a bubble problem right now.

Edit: Increasing savings is the last thing we want to do right now.

Correct. Which is precisely why running very large deficits is smart macroeconomic policy for the foreseeable future. Once the economy is back on track, then we worry about the deficit, but not until then.

[JohnDoe]

Correct. Which is precisely why running very large deficits is smart macroeconomic policy for the foreseeable future. Once the economy is back on track, then we worry about the deficit, but not until then.

Right. But we are running very large defecits (ok) while printing money (by itself, ok) while raising taxes (by itself, ok), but together these things are setting us up for really bad things.

[Lucid]

As opposed to the guy who wants to dramatically increase taxes on every investment and every corp profit during a depression.

Investments in many assets (the most risky) are being subsidized by the government at a huge advantage to the private investor. Also, the capital gains tax has been at 15%. I don't know what you pay in taxes, but I pay about 21% so it seems that these investments are already being way under taxed - at least compared to most working class income taxes.
In addition, all but the richest of us are getting tax cuts. And those who are having their taxes raised, have had them raised to the level they were at under Regan.

With respect, is there just something about your argument I'm missing? I freely admit that this is a possibility. If so, please elaborate for me.

[Henry]

Right. But we are running very large defecits (ok) while printing money (by itself, ok) while raising taxes (by itself, ok), but together these things are setting us up for really bad things.

No, they won't, if navigated properly, and I can assure you that the perils of doing nothing are far greater than the potential pitfalls of action.

Governments can very effectively "lean against the wind" and correct imbalances in savings and planned investment, and the Federal Reserve always considers the impact of the government balance. So for now, the appopriate response is to run very large fiscal deficits while simultaneously increasing the money supply. We should continue with this until planned investment, overall growth, and employment picks back up to pre-2008 levels.

Once it does, the rest of the picture will correct itself. That will be an appropriate time to raise taxes and cut spending, which is I believe what the Obama administration has been saying all along.


Government intervention in markets is problematic when its misplaced (Johnson's reforms), too slow (the honorary Kennedy tax cut), or when there's a dogmatic refusal to raise/cut taxes or spending (as in the case of large deficits in the late 80s and 2005-2008).

[JohnDoe]

No, they won't, if navigated properly, and I can assure you that the perils of doing nothing are far greater than the potential pitfalls of action.

Governments can very effectively "lean against the wind" and correct imbalances in savings and planned investment, and the Federal Reserve always considers the impact of the government balance. So for now, the appopriate response is to run very large fiscal deficits while simultaneously increasing the money supply. We should continue with this until planned investment, overall growth, and employment picks back up to pre-2008 levels.

Once it does, the rest of the picture will correct itself. That will be an appropriate time to raise taxes and cut spending, which is I believe what the Obama administration has been saying all along.


Government intervention in markets is problematic when its misplaced (Johnson's reforms), too slow (the honorary Kennedy tax cut), or when there's a dogmatic refusal to raise/cut taxes or spending (as in the case of large deficits in the late 80s and 2005-2008).

You have gigantic faith in the Fed to be able to perfectly pick the spot at which to turn off the presses and then, having picked a spot, be able to muster the political will to turn them off. I don't share your faith.

[jadefalcon]

My current problem with Obama has nothing to do with him not fixing the economy, since I don't expect that his policies will fix the economy ever; I never did. My problem stems more from his apparent reversal of campaign trail promises regarding earmarks, and the extraordinarily inefficient way in which his administration seems to be running so far. He's spending an awful lot of time on the road; the campaign is over now.

I agree with boldbidder about the good things that he's done, the man's not worthless, but they are all fairly minor, especially since his "timeline" is a very long-term one; it doesn't really seem to match what he promised. I don't think an earlier withdrawal is possible, but he had previously said that it was.




This is a very fair point- one I have neglected. I voted for the other party- John McCain. I knew either route would repair the economy, but I'm not sure if either can "fix" the economy once and for all. To answer the question- looking at my matrix my opinion of him is slightly better than it was when he was elected into office. Not much change there- maybe he has done some good things or said good things, but that is it.

[curiousgeorge01]

I like the verbal sparring between John Doe and Henry but I'd have to side with John Doe on this one.

Despite all our large increases in knowlege of finance, when it comes down to it a negative is still a negative and a positive is a positve. What I mean by that is the a deficit is always a bad thing unless there's a way to finance it completely with funds available. While inflation does give us cheaper dollars to pay the deficit back with, overall we're a debtor nation, and when is being in debt a good thing? All it means is that we're selling our future to another country.

[Henry]

You have gigantic faith in the Fed to be able to perfectly pick the spot at which to turn off the presses and then, having picked a spot, be able to muster the political will to turn them off. I don't share your faith.

I do have every confidence in the Federal Reserve. It has been, under Volker and most of Greenspan's years, the finest central bank in the world. Bernake is a bit dovish on inflation for my tastes, but he's proven he has the testicular fortitude to engineer a recession when absolutely necessary.

I do have concerns regarding Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi's willingness to address the deficits once we are back on track. Scary as the potential for 10t in new debt over the next decade is, its far less scary than beginning down the road towards Great Depression 2.0.

[JohnDoe]

I do have every confidence in the Federal Reserve. It has been, under Volker and most of Greenspan's years, the finest central bank in the world. Bernake is a bit dovish on inflation for my tastes, but he's proven he has the testicular fortitude to engineer a recession when absolutely necessary.

I do have concerns regarding Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi's willingness to address the deficits once we are back on track. Scary as the potential for 10t in new debt over the next decade is, its far less scary than beginning down the road towards Great Depression 2.0.

Sorry I disagree. There is a fair amount of blame to go directly to Greenspan's federal reserve for letting irrational exuberance get way way too irrational by leaving interest rates crazy low.





JohnDoe added to this post, 5 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Investments in many assets (the most risky) are being subsidized by the government at a huge advantage to the private investor. Also, the capital gains tax has been at 15%. I don't know what you pay in taxes, but I pay about 21% so it seems that these investments are already being way under taxed - at least compared to most working class income taxes.
In addition, all but the richest of us are getting tax cuts. And those who are having their taxes raised, have had them raised to the level they were at under Regan.

With respect, is there just something about your argument I'm missing? I freely admit that this is a possibility. If so, please elaborate for me.

You don't risk losing assets you already have just working a job. So I actually think the lower capital gains rate for long term investments is appropriate. Short term capital gains (<1yr) are taxed at ordinary income rates.

[Double Victory]

When Obama was making "promises" on his campaign trail I was well aware that they wouldn't be implemented and in many cases were impossible for our country with the state it's in (universal health care? puh-lease). I think some of it he knew beforehand, but I think a lot of it he didn't understand until he was put into the President's chair and given access to all the information that candidates themselves just can't know about. I voted for him because I honestly believe that he honestly wants to make this country great, whereas I believe McCain wanted the presidency because he felt like it was more of an obligation to run for it and because he felt like he was capable of handling it the same way he felt he was capable of handling an officer position in the Navy (which he very clearly wasn't).

I'm in the Air Force myself, and McCain absolutely disgusted me with the way he conducted himself in the service. I wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.

However, if you put McCain and Obama on the same level ability-wise, I would have voted for Obama because he legitimately generated hope, not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world. Anyone in the military can tell you how important morale is. I'm a firm believer that part of this whole mess is self-fulfilling prophecy, and if people believe things will get better they will.

Now, as for how Obama's done so far? Meh. I'm not ecstatic, but I'm not unhappy. He is doing an awful lot. The economy isn't something he can necessarily control--it's a cycle. Pushing massive amounts of money into the system is supposed to shorten the length of the recession, which I don't really think was necessary, but things are going to start getting a ton better within the next decade with the development and application of new technology.

Which brings me to another point of why I voted for Obama over McCain, which is that he is much more for the development of new technology, particularly promoting methods of moving away from oil dependency (such as electric cars) than McCain was. McCain advocated drilling, which I personally thought was stupid. Why on earth you would focus your entire campaign around a temporary solution when we have the technology and means available to take a full step forward is beyond me. (Anyone else excited about the Aptera (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?)

So basically, even if Obama doesn't accomplish a lot while he's in office, I'll be happy. In the big picture, he's basically a placeholder while America recalibrates itself to come out of the recession and takes a giant leap forward technologically (two necessary things for the advancement of our country that the President has little control over other than advocacy). If he can make foreign countries and our own people happy in the meantime, friggin awesome.

[JohnDoe]

...

I actually agree somewhat. Obama has done a reasonable job. However the increasingly "corperations suck" worldview concerns me.

[Double Victory]

I actually agree somewhat. Obama has done a reasonable job. However the increasingly "corperations suck" worldview concerns me.

It's hard to take a stand either way on that. I despise greed and selfishness, but even as an optimist I don't think America is capable of handling the destruction of low-priced chain stores like Wal-Mart. Yeah, they do bad things, and they push developing countries down, but at the cost of our own comfortable lifestyle, no one's going to do anything about it. I would like them to be "more accountable," if that even has a meaning anymore.

[darynthe]

Solus was being sarcastic people. You guys are strangely literal. I have noticed that in most threads.

However, I personally think that there should be minimun requirements for presidency. The guy should have at least a masters in Economy and then a second profession, such as Law or International Affaires.

Let us see. A president similar to Obama was elected two years ago in Ecuador. The guy is a new wave socialist, however his feet are well planted in reality. He has a Master in Economy in Europe and a PHD in Economy in the US. He has done a lot of changes and is going economically in the right direction. He is also extremely charismatic and even had the same slogan as Obama.

The president of Chile (a woman, btw) is a medical doctor (pediatrician and epidemiologist) and has a masters degree in military continental strategy. This last is the kind of degree presidents must have given their level responsability.

[curiousgeorge01]

Solus was being sarcastic people. You guys are strangely literal. I have noticed that in most threads.

However, I personally think that there should be a minimun requirement for presidency. The guy should have at least a masters in Economy and then a second profession, such as Law or International Affaires.

Let us see. A similar president as Obama was elected two years ago in Ecuador. The guy is a new wave socialist, however his feet are into reality. He has a Master in Economy in Europe and a PHD in Economy in the US. He has done quite a lot of changes and is going economically in the right direction. He is also extremely charismatic and even had the same slogan as Obama.

The president of Chile (a woman, btw) is a medical doctor (pediatrician and epididemiologist) and has a masters degree in military continental strategy. This last is the kind of degree presidents must have given the level responsability.


Yes I agree with you that the president should at least be financially trained. He doesn't have to be a Phd but he has to have proven himself capable of navigating financially. Look atTim Geitner, he couldn't even do his taxes right and Obama hired him!

[Henry]

For two people + kids. Families are more expensive.

So even if you ignore economies of scale, say 1 other person and two kids, you have 4800 per month, or about 55k per year, leaves you wanting for nothing.

I drive a nice, reliable car, I pay for my own insurance, I go out to eat 1-2 times per week, I eat well at home, I see at least one movie per week, I buy clothes as needed, I buy whatever fancy gadgets I really want, I belong to a nice gym, I went to Ireland this year and Paris last, I buy nice gifts for my SOs. In short, I want for nothing on 1200-1400 per month.

I just don't see where in the world you would need more than 150k per year in income to be comfortable. I see needing 235k to drive BMWs, eat out at fancy restaurants regularly, buy expensive clothing, regularly visit Starbucks, etc, but not to live comfortably.

It's hard to take a stand either way on that. I despise greed and selfishness, but even as an optimist I don't think America is capable of handling the destruction of low-priced chain stores like Wal-Mart. Yeah, they do bad things, and they push developing countries down, but at the cost of our own comfortable lifestyle, no one's going to do anything about it. I would like them to be "more accountable," if that even has a meaning anymore.

So, like, China is struggling?

[JohnDoe]

So, like, China is struggling?

China isn't struggling because they artificially keep their currency low relative to the USD so that they can create jobs by exporting goods to us.

[Double Victory]

So, like, China is struggling?

The Chinese government isn't; the Chinese people who don't have the luxury of living in a city are. You can't become a first world country when so much of your population lives in poverty in villages. And I don't think first world countries voluntarily flood those villages in order to divert overflowing rivers from destroying major cities, either.

China has money, but they've got major problems, too.

[curiousgeorge01]

I liked China, I lived there for a while lol. But true, the areas that are doing well are the bustling cities. If you go to the rural areas, which are the vast majority of China, its still very backwards. They use coal!

[Henry]

The Chinese government isn't; the Chinese people who don't have the luxury of living in a city are. You can't become a first world country when so much of your population lives in poverty in villages. And I don't think first world countries voluntarily flood those villages in order to divert overflowing rivers from destroying major cities, either.

China has money, but they've got major problems, too.

Your statement was that Walmart has pushed the third world down. Although not a fan of Walmart or China, Walmart has been one of the primary ways in which Chinese goods reach affluent markets, and the Chinese intend to receive very low prices for their goods in order to stimulate real demand.

In short, Walmart is doing exactly what China wants it to do.

[curiousgeorge01]

No offense to anyone who is dutch, but that's a really pessimistic thing to say. I mean, sure, every great power has done some things in its history which are wrong, despicable, or not "morally"/"ethically" correct, but that doesn't mean that country cannot change its image in the world in the future -- does it not?


Well I'm supposing that means that we have a president with American ideas and a Congress and Supreme Court with American ideas, so what has really changed? Yes a country can change its image, but its very difficult to do; you always need the right leader. I don't think there are many good leaders out there.

[Double Victory]

Your statement was that Walmart has pushed the third world down. Although not a fan of Walmart or China, Walmart has been one of the primary ways in which Chinese goods reach affluent markets, and the Chinese intend to receive very low prices for their goods in order to stimulate real demand.

In short, Walmart is doing exactly what China wants it to do.

In the first place I never said this whole thing is because of Walmart. I originally said "low priced chain stores like Walmart" which suggests that I was not talking only about Walmart. ALL of the super low priced stores are doing the same thing in regards to pushing down developing countries (not only China) by overworking and underpaying their factory employees. It's not even just low priced chain stores; De Beers does the same thing in South Africa.

Secondly, again, Walmart is benefiting the Chinese government, but is taking advantage of the working people to the point that, in its current state, China will never be able to become a first world country. A decent reference for Walmart factory workers in China: here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). A country can make all the money they want, but if the average standard of living is still really low, I don't really think you can consider that doing exactly what the country wants it to do.

[SuperBenjamin]

Obama is a disaster waiting to happen, he have been lying to us from the beginning from shutting those FEMA concentration camps to pulling troops out of IRAQ! He uses your money to pay those banksters...... the list goes on and on but heres a good link Prisonplanet.com

[nacht]

Obama is a disaster waiting to happen, he have been lying to us from the beginning


This should be entertaining.


from shutting those FEMA concentration camps


There are no "FEMA concentration camps." You can see Popular Mechanics investigation of the matter (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Though Obama sadly did not change the status of the director of FEMA, he did appoint an experienced person to the job.

Given that they don't exist and Obama never said he would close the nonexistent facilities, it is stretching to say that he is "lying" when he then proceeds to not do anything about the nonexistent facilities.


to pulling troops out of IRAQ!


We seem to be more-or-less on track with this, given his previous promises and conditions on the ground. Politifact has been rating his promises on Iraq as "Kept." Perhaps you would care to be more specific as to how he has "lied" here.


He uses your money to pay those banksters......


I recall no promises around this point one way or the other.


the list goes on and on but heres a good link Prisonplanet.com

Ah yes, because a website owned by Alex Jones is going to be a good source for information on this sort of thing.

[rhane]

Always good to see Nacht around. You strike me as the kind of guy/girl who is extremely analytical but who rarely expresses opinion. Seeing as this is an INTJ forum, I'm particularly fascinated by that. I'm wondering if you typically plan on twisting peoples opinions to suit your own viewpoint since I've never seen you come out and actually express your views except to use outside resources to restore balance to an argument.

Anyway, enough of that. Personally, Obama is a guy I'd like to meet face to face. He's a tremendous public speaker, has a very magnetic personality, and his campaign was well run. That's as far as my compliments to the man will extend.

I don't think he has the might and the experience necessary to do a thorough job, and I think he relies very heavily on his public image and celebrity to accomplish things. I think this is the reason he is able to deliver effective speeches, while simultaneously avoiding key points and details about his plans that would otherwise cause quite a riot.

In short, I think he was probably one of the least effective picks for president out of the entire host of nominees from various parties. This is my personal opinion.

[SuperBenjamin]

hehe...... even if i grab videos from you tube of Obama making fake promises that wouldn't be enough.... you have invested too much of your identity in him..... I rest my case, just two days ago there were military practices in my neighborhood, they are preparing for a police state here. Ok, to end my post here, Obama is a god and should be worship and Oh God curse those that don't thinnk he is deserving of our adulation! lol

[taylortatero]

From the start I've thought that he was a bit overrated.
As of now, I don't think he's doing too well, but with the economy as it is right now I don't think he's able to do too much about it. I do believe he has good intentions, but he promised so much and gave people the intention that everything would be fine and dandy very soon and it's backfired on him.

Despite everything's that's going on I'm still Pro-Bama.

[syndatha]

I'm impressed. He's delivering us to socialism way faster than I imagined possible. As for foreign policy, he's doing a tremendous job of offending our allies and encouraging our enemies. All in all, outstanding effort on O's part. Given his background as an attorney, I wasn't sure he could screw up by the numbers nearly so adroitly.

Speaking as one of your allies, I can honestly say that Obama has not offended the state of Norway (NATO-member). 85% of the norwegian population wanted him to win the election, and most of us think he has succeded so far. Bush did nothing for the european impression of the US - his name is almost a synonyme for stupid, vain and barbarian where I come from.
As for socialism, I think it's one of the most misused expressions in the US (along with liberalism). Obama is no where near socialism as far as I can see. But a fair bit closer to humanism than his predecessor. Improving your f)&//&kced up health care system would be a good next step in my opinion. (Referring to Michael Moore's "Sicko".)

What is this "powerful intellect" everybody's prattling on about? He's running what, a 120, 125 IQ? Or is he considered smart because he has an advanced degree from an Ivy league school? Unlike his predecessor, who..um...oh, that's right, he had an Ivy MBA.
I really don't think you need to be a member of MENSA to be a visionary leader. Idealism and empathy will do just as well, and even better.

In all honesty, I'm pleased by his performance so far. Due to the magic of dollar-cost-averaging, this month I bought 4 shares of the market for every 3 I bought in January. What a bargain!
Congratulations on your bargain. You probably know this already, but the recess in the economy started before Obama became president.





syndatha added to this post, 54 minutes and 50 seconds later...

You should look up socialism. And you should study most European governments. Even the most 'socialist' of Obama's policies and ideas are nothing in comparison.

That is very true. Our social-democratic government regulates the size and opening hours of grocery stores, the price of daycare, the number of times you are allowed to change your name, the color of your house (local authorities). They even wanted to forbid people to smoke in their own house. I pay nearly half of my income in tax, there's a 25% tax on everything that is sold. Meaning the government earns 25% of the value of everything that is sold. You even have to pay tax if you redecorate the house yourself. We have a state religion, the military service is mandatory. I could go on and on :laugh:
Oh, yes, did I mention that the state actually owns several companies, some of the banks, and that the state is the biggest stockholder on Oslo stock exchange?
So, you see, in my country, I'm NOT a socialist - but I would probably be counted as one in the US, because I grew up in a social democracy ;)

[larkin]

Always good to see Nacht around. You strike me as the kind of guy/girl who is extremely analytical but who rarely expresses opinion. Seeing as this is an INTJ forum, I'm particularly fascinated by that. I'm wondering if you typically plan on twisting peoples opinions to suit your own viewpoint since I've never seen you come out and actually express your views except to use outside resources to restore balance to an argument.

Isn't balance a good thing? You're taking shots at the person who actually relies on facts and details instead of just delivering the same tiresome, rambling, paranoid tirades against what is clearly wrongly perceived as socialism? (Thanks, syndatha, for the ongoing effort at clarification, and to lucid before that for the same.) Many accuse people on the left of being overly emotional when it's the rare exception to hear an argument against Obama that isn't suffused with anger or fear or both.

Of course, it would be silly to argue that both sides don't engage in it. But would that our national debate on policy had more reliably-sourced facts and fewer tirades. Would that people knew what they were talking about or took the time to make sure their facts were correct before they expressed an opinion. Just because it's opinion doesn't give the holder license to be casual or worse still, purposely misleading with facts when they're offered.

[Visum]

Hmm, when I think of Obama, I think, larger government, less private rights, government provided deathcare, cap n tax, stimulus that ends up being used to buy US stocks, permanence in Afghanistan (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and a few other things.

I apologize to any people that were offended by my bonehead link of historically questionable material. I respect all peoples and races.

[meanlittlechimp]

Deficits are not "good" or "bad". Deficits are a mechanism that turn savings into demand. During times of a reasonable balance of demand and long-run capacity, running deficits will slow growth by slowing addition to the capital stock, and cause inflation with few gains in output, which most would consider "bad". When there's an excess of savings/capital relative to demand and you have unemployment approaching 10%, deficits serve to create jobs and recycle excess savings back into demand for little in the way of inflation, which most would consider "good".

If you ignore economic growth numbers, he's running about 4xs "as worse" as Bush

Small debt or deficits aren't bad. It's the large ones that can kill ya.

Fiscally speaking, deficits are bad when they reach such a size that the mere interest on is draining a large part of tax revenue. The banking bailouts are nothing compared to the Iraq war and furthermore the banking bailouts were not his fault. No who know anything about economics would ascribe that to Obama - only Fox watching idiots. None of the smart conservatives think this.

Monetarily speaking, deficits can be bad because foreign central banks could eventually lose faith in our ability to pay them down, which would cause them dumping T-bills or government bonds. This would have significant negative impacts to our currency causing higher inflation rates (when combined with oil price spikes) cause extreme shock and instability to our system.

Oh please Obama has just been constantly ratcheting up the spending. Hes 50x worse then Bush for the deficit.
The debt is the much bigger issue, not the short term deficit. The deficits Reagan and the Bushes left are what caused our debt problems. Clinton left a budget surplus, Reagan and Bush had huge deficits. They were anything from small government - they lowered taxes on the wealthy yet, BORROWED 70% of our GDP (the highest since WWII) when Clinton came to office. They were spending the money equivalent to the time when we were in the largest war the world has ever seen.

Graph of GDP to debt ratio since 1940
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most of the debt was caused by rampant military spending, that we didn't feel the full detriment of yet. Now that servicing the interest rate on the debt has surpassed all other major expenditures (except the military) we are indeed feeling it. We will be paying for the Iraq War for the next 100 years.

We'll spend more on paying the interest on the debt than we do on social programs, public education or banking bailouts combined. They talk about small government but leave a massive crippling debt to their children to pay for their wars. It's absurd when anyone from the right talk about deficits. It's completely laughable.

Our debt is 11 trillion dollars, if you look at UNFUNDED medicare and social security that's 59 trillion - when the baby boomers live to 110 because advanced medicine and they retire and start drooling. We'll be in a world of shit.

Obama may make it slightly worse or slightly better; but he can't fix it, no one can. You can only reduce the damage at best. Nothing Obama could to could match Bush or Reagan spend unless he gets trigger happy in there, which I don't think will be likely. The reason the rest of the world cheered is - he's mostly likely not a bomb happy douchebag.

But who knows he may have tricked us all.

[detokaal]

I see through bullshit instantly. It took one speech from this dude and there was no chance of him getting my vote. He has done everything I suspected so far: lie lie lie.

[nacht]

I see through bullshit instantly. It took one speech from this dude and there was no chance of him getting my vote. He has done everything I suspected so far: lie lie lie.

I don't suppose you would care to back that up.

[SuperBenjamin]

I don't suppose you would care to back that up.

A year ago I would have the energy to do it, to give out the evidence and educate people on the fraud in this America empire(Obama is just a puppet). But after a few months I realized people have invested too much of their identity in him so that even if they are logical and factual they refuse to see and blind themselves to the evidence. They respond offensively so.... I give up. Believe and do what works for you.

You want evidence? Gerald Celente, youtube him. He has never been wrong in his forecast for the last 30 years. Do you even care to do it and research his credibility? *shrug*

PS-To those that aren't prepared for the coming calamity and choose to stay ignorant, you deserve every thing you will get from this engineered crises and tyranny of the government. The evidence and signs are so clear now. We are not going through a recession but a planned demolition.

[Hamburglar]

PS-To those that aren't prepared for the coming calamity and choose to stay ignorant, you deserve every thing you will get from this engineered crises and tyranny of the government. The evidence and signs are so clear now. We are not going through a recession but a planned demolition.

Oh, well please enlighten us ignorant ones how WE can prepare ourselves for this impending intellectual revolution that will take us back to the pre-WWII world?

[RBM]

Since I just came across Celente in my daily reading -- at The Automatic Earth (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who posted a piece by Andrew Gavin Marshall at Lew Rockwel, tittled Entering the Greatest Depression in History More Bubbles Waiting to Burst (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and both include Celente clip:

Gerald Celente, the head of the Trends Research Institute, the major trend-forecasting agency in the world, wrote in May of 2009 of the “bailout bubble.” Celente’s forecasts are not to be taken lightly, as he accurately predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1998 Russian economic collapse, the 1997 East Asian economic crisis, the 2000 Dot-Com bubble burst, the 2001 recession, the start of a recession in 2007 and the housing market collapse of 2008, among other things.

On May 13, 2009, Celente released a Trend Alert, reporting that, “The biggest financial bubble in history is being inflated in plain sight,” and that, “This is the Mother of All Bubbles, and when it explodes [...] it will signal the end to the boom/bust cycle that has characterized economic activity throughout the developed world.” Further, “This is much bigger than the Dot-com and Real Estate bubbles which hit speculators, investors and financiers the hardest. However destructive the effects of these busts on employment, savings and productivity, the Free Market Capitalist framework was left intact. But when the 'Bailout Bubble' explodes, the system goes with it.”

The 'When' is the unseeable element.

I suspect this could go on a couple more years, and then a Black Swan will appear blowing the house of cards away.

[Mader]

Most of you here are younger.
I am old and jaded. you know, been there, done that.
I grew up outside Chicago. My grandparents were low level political in the 60's and 70's in Chicago. I had a brother involved in Illinois politics in the late 70's. Obama came up in the sytem I am familar with. Production is not the priority, control is the priority. I know, this sounds like the paranoid folks on the web. too bad, tho, cause this was the way it was done.

Obama was very appealing, until he opened his mouth. It was immediately apparent that he was an empty suit. Pretty to look at, sounds great, but superficial and soulless. He just spoke like a salesman, or to think about it, like a lawyer. Lots of words, but very little is actually said. Our President is the front man for a smoky backroom.

Our President is in over his head. His chief of staff has watched too many episodes of the Sopranos. Our Speaker of the House is traveling in an alternate reality - altho she would be an excellent Guido (collector) for our Chief of Staff.

Tammany Hall. TeaPot Dome. RobberBarons.

So, Americans are standing up and putting a stop to this. Things may get messy. Very sad, I hate to see folks become disillusioned.

Sure wish I understood the economic concepts y'all using here - especially the debt is good part. Going into debt to stock up the warehouse in order to take advantage of a sale I get. But aren't you supposed to get back into the black sometimes?
It isn't as tho we are only 60 days out in the red... If you keep running, and growing, the red, at some point you no longer control or own anything. Are we there yet?

[RBM]

Mader, I think I may be a bit older (56 on Friday) but I have steered clear of most of the ideological mess of politics as a result of some liberal arts education that created the cynic in me at not yet 20 years old.

You've most likely lived what I've only learned in books. I said elsewhere in cyberspace when Obama won the nomination that 'he will be eaten by the machine'. That opinion and metaphor I expressed was, in part, by the book learning and a few decades of watching the political system decay in corruptness. The way things are going though it may be worse than I envisioned - Obama may not even know he is a stooge to the Corporatocracy.

The worst case I see about the mess: The perp's walk and we end up 'fighting among ourselves'.

I'm just starting to pay attention to economics, and learn about it - just cause it's such a mess - which tells me nobody really has a clue. See reb's OP on Ascent of Money.

[rhane]

I wish George Bush was still president.

[Hamburglar]

I wish George Bush was still president.

ohoh...you mean Karl Rove.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Glia]

I generally approve of what has occured during Obama's presidency so far.

I'm not a democrat, but neither am a republican. No offense to reasonable republicans here (I actually know one), but most republicans I meet are irrational and need to watch a channel other than Fox News every so often.

[meanlittlechimp]

A year ago I would have the energy to do it, to give out the evidence and educate people on the fraud in this America empire(Obama is just a puppet). But after a few months I realized people have invested too much of their identity in him so that even if they are logical and factual they refuse to see and blind themselves to the evidence. They respond offensively so....

Move down to Mississippi or Alabama, they'll take you a lot more seriously there.


You want evidence? Gerald Celente, youtube him. He has never been wrong in his forecast for the last 30 years.
Except when he said Gore and Kerry were going to be elected president, among other things.

His prediction of an upcoming economic calamity is widely agreed upon by the majority of the economists out there (because of health care, energy, and our massive debt). He just goes a step farther and claims we'll revert back to the stone age, when it happens.

Do you really take everyone interviewed on Glen Beck seriously? Oh yeah, forgot this was INTJcentral, and some here, actually watch the show without laughing.