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.
Somebody should put a reminder on their smart phone to respond to this thread at three years into the next GOP Admin. Things will be worse than they are now, and each party will still be blaming the other.
Comments against Obama are fair, but only in the context that if McCain had won, things would not have been any better, possibly worse.
In addition to the fact that our country is dealing with a new global economy that has never been seen before, we are also effected by a number of exterior forces. As an example, the European Debt Crisis is in absolute contradiction to an American recovery. Period....
Again (as I've said in many posts), I'm not defending Obama, other than stating that in comparison, he is not worse, and possibly better than what we would have gotten with McCain/Pailin. The difference is that their "big Gov't" would have entailed just as much spending, with no effort to pay for it through revenue. Their big gov't would have included telling people what they can do with their body, and taking a woman's freedom to choose life. Their answer to healthcare would have been to stop people at from having access to preventive care, and then having the horrific choice of letting fellow Americans die a painful death, or paying EVEN MORE to take care of their sick a$$es because they were denied earlier.
I'll say it YET AGAIN, I am not getting Obama's back here, I am simply pointing out the hypocracy of those criticizing him.
The new world economy (and technology) allows jobs to move more freely. As a result, Americans will not be able to support our higher standard of living, as it will make MORE BUSINESS SENSE to ship those jobs where the standard of living (and therefore the wages) are lower. Obama nor anyone else can fix that in a few years. Although, the "big business Republicans" are historically more in favor of policy that rewards corporations for shipping jobs off shore, and are more in favor of the redistribution of wealth from our middle class, to the upper class. (the very people who put them in office are cutting their own throats, and then wanting to blame anyone they can for what they got.)
If you want to save America, quit pi$$ing and moaning about dems and reps, they all suck. Instead, put down the keyboard, and start working as hard as some hungry guy in Penang is willing to do for twice the job at half the wage. Get out there, use your Superior American education (if it still exists), your engenuity, and the work ethic that your granddaddy had, and go out-perform someone bidding for the same job in Seoul or in Mumbai. And when you come up for air, go to the poles and elect someone who will get rid of the two-party system, and start electing governments who will be FORCED to get [crap] done, or won't get re-elected (which is nearly impossible with our current two-party system, which is evidenced by this rediculous thread!)
God grief, I'm a fairly normal, middle-aged, middle-class white guy that works hard and takes care of his family. Reading this thread really pi$$ed me off.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,409,483 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by burnsjacob38
Go figure...
We did not have a surplus (or even a balanced budget) when GW became president. Clinton's plan (that was passed) had the balance to be achieved within 15 years and a surplus after that. It was all on paper. That is the problem with anything other than a Balanced Budget Amendment - it will only be "balanced" with a projected achievement date (that is always at least 15 years down the road - IF they keep to the stipulations - which they never do). A balanced budget amendment will make it the balancing of a budget an act of law instead of what "should" be done by responsible people (Politicians NEVER equates to responsibility).
i've been disappointed by many of obama's decisions, as well. however, i find it puzzling that you think our problems can be cleared up in 2 years. Our recession was just beginning in Fall 2008. i expect it will take about a decade, at least, for the debt deleveraging to run its course. It is unrealistic to expect Obama to save the economy.
I would be down for replacing Obama, if there was some kind of sensible alternative. I don't see that materializing.
Where did you get the idea that the effects of a recession last a decade?
The effect of a failed policy can go on indefinitely (see New Deal), but recessions rarely last more than a few quarters.
By this time in Reagan's first term the economy was booming (9.3% GDP).
no................................ but he and he alone created the $1.3 to $1.6 trillion dollar deficits.
Obama has wasted trillions. The effect? Nothing. Obama has blown through more debt in four years than Bush did in eight. Can the nation survive four more years of Obama? Probably not. A vote for Obama in 2012 is a vote for the end of the Union.
Again (as I've said in many posts), I'm not defending Obama, other than stating that in comparison, he is not worse, and possibly better than what we would have gotten with McCain/Pailin. The difference is that their "big Gov't" would have entailed just as much spending, with no effort to pay for it through revenue. Their big gov't would have included telling people what they can do with their body, and taking a woman's freedom to choose life. Their answer to healthcare would have been to stop people at from having access to preventive care, and then having the horrific choice of letting fellow Americans die a painful death, or paying EVEN MORE to take care of their sick a$$es because they were denied earlier.
Where did you get the idea that the effects of a recession last a decade?
Japan
Quote:
The effect of a failed policy can go on indefinitely (see New Deal),
The new deal was a successful policy.
Quote:
but recessions rarely last more than a few quarters.
By this time in Reagan's first term the economy was booming (9.3% GDP).
This depression has a different cause than the garden variety cold war recessions. You're talking about apples and oranges. Our current situation is far more severe than what Reagan faced.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 10-26-2011 at 02:45 PM..
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.
