Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why hasn't he?? He's been in Office 2 1/2 years and until the Election in Nov. had control of everything, plus the Dems had control for the last 2 years of the Bush Term. They did just what they wanted to do. This is now Obama's mess and he's been in full campaign mode since day one, he won't do anything to upset his money backers.
You are willfully ignoring Republican obstructionism. These are the Senate filibusters. As you can see, the Republicans have been throwing monkey wrenches into Obama's plans and then claiming he is ineffectual.
Or is so partisan that they refuse to believe their side can do any wrong.
No one likes to be on the losing side of an election. I was outraged when Bill Clinton won. Took me weeks to get over it. Seriously, I thought the world would end.
People also don't like to speak badly of "their" candidate. Nor do they like to admit when one they oppose does anything good. It seems to be human nature for some.
The way some people sound though, Obama could be crapping rose petals, laying gold bricks on the street, and mailing out money to everyone and they still wouldn't be happy.
Right................... "you pay back the debt during good economic times"........... just like Greece!
Tell me- when, in the history of the US since 1960, has the US EVER PAID DOWN THE DEBT DURING "GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES?!". Answer- Never. Further, even your friends the Keynesians, have NO SOLUTION to the problem when the debt, which they advocate accumulating, becomes "unsustainable".
I think you need to read more Keynesian economic books. I do. It is more akin to comedy than reality that someone would actually believe the stuff. Keep in mind that the Keynesians point to the shining examples of Greece, Italy, and Spain as "success" for their model!
Well the key to a system of economics working is to, ya know, follow the system....
My point which you failed to grasp is that if you are going to follow Keynesian dogma, the debt should NOT have been at dangerous levels when Obama took office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The lament of the Obamabots is that "things would have been the same anyway under different leadership." This clearly shows that even the Obamabots now understand that Obama is a complete economic failure and are simply seeking to rationalize his failures. Guess what? "Stimulus" has never worked EVER. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush used tax cuts to turn around the economy. That, and a fundamental change in US tax and regulatory policy is needed. We need a reversal of liberal policy for the last fifty years, as it has been an abject failure. Only a fool would continue to implement policy over and over again after failure.
It isn't a "lament" that Obama is a failure. Its disbelief that people actually thought that in two years the economy would be back to normal NO MATTER WHO WE ELECTED. (I'll give you the minute or two you apparently need to process that).
I also find it funny that you call for a change in US regulatory and tax policy when taxes HAVEN'T CHANGED. OBAMA KEPT THE BUSH TAX CUTS.... HELLO?!!! Also it seems Republicans are AGAINST any meaningful Wall Street Banking reform. So you're going to have to look at your own side of the aisle and ask the questions about financial regulations to some of them....
Oh, and right on your all's level and talking points. <Ahem... let me warm up here... mee mee meeeeeeee.... Okay here goes.> Didn't you all have six years of control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress to make these "changes" you are supposedly advocating?
(Ya'll will have to let me know if I said that right... I assume since it's ALL Obama's fault because he had TWO years of full control that you'd hold Bush three times as accountable for having SIX and doing nothing... )
You admit, then, that Obama has been an economic failure? I admit that of Bush, yet he had an unemployment rate of under 4%, a debt when he left office at $8.6 trillion, and a much stronger currency. Bush was bad, but he was an economic genius compared to Obama.
I think the above paragraph from your post summarizes where you stand with your understanding of the realities. If you're bad, you're bad, stop making excuses for Bush. Never mind the fact that you neither have the facts right nor have a proper understanding of why debt and deficits can rise due to policies from the past. Trust me, you would be among those blaming Obama for years, if not decades, as has been well documented with regards to the previous democratic Presidents going back to at least Carter. I see those as irrational responses.
Since you brought up unemployment rate (again) after conveniently ignoring a bit of reality check on that issue yesterday, about the ridiculousness of relying as a measure on job growth. If you dare, tell me if 1981-1984 were worse job growth years than 2001-2004 since the unemployment rate stayed above 9.5 for two years in a row, and never ever close to any of the Bush years.
The financial debacle, the loss of 4.6 million private sector jobs in just twelve months (more jobs lost than gained in seven years preceding that, for goodness sake), regardless of what the unemployment rate was (which, BTW, jumbed from below 5% in Jan 2008 to over 7.5% in Jan 2009). Consequently, you're either truly ignorant of the facts or are deliberately lying to push your personal agenda regardless of the consequences. There is no third possibility.
and that is a good thing. If he would just get out of the way and stop bailouts and stimulus waste, the economy would repair itself after making needed corrections.
Then why hasn't he?? He's been in Office 2 1/2 years and until the Election in Nov. had control of everything, plus the Dems had control for the last 2 years of the Bush Term. They did just what they wanted to do. This is now Obama's mess and he's been in full campaign mode since day one, he won't do anything to upset his money backers.
He has done his part, you've not been made aware by your sources, or at least a twisted version presented to you. Now, is it the President's responsibility to write, vote and finish off with signing such reforms?
i see you stopped the chart at 2009 let me add that government figures on GDP are now being "reworked"..
The United States basically has two major ongoing problems with the trade deficit, Chinese goods and Oil imports.
wars use a lot of oil, and a lot of wars use a lot of oil.
ask americans if things are getting easier or harder for them, if you don't believe me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, I thought the world would end.
!
