Who is to blame ? Obama ? His Marketing team ? Or the gullable people that saw him as something other than just another tap dancing politician ?
STOP
By TMAC54 Follow Fri, 27 Apr 2012, 7:57am 5,337 views 66 comments
In San Leandro CA 94578
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-40 of 66 Next » Last » See most liked comments
|
TMAC54 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
TMAC54 says
Who's to blame for what?
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,188 threads
6,157 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Yes, there's very vague criticism of Obama.
What specifically could he have done differently? I can think of a few things:
* not signing the NDAA
* insisting on the public option
* refusing contributions from Wall Street
Overall though, Obama is a giant freaking success compared to Bush, who started an unneccessary war and hugely increased spending while giving huge unjustified tax cuts to the 1%.
But no, Obama could not have been white. That's something he could not have done differently.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Patrick says
Agree. Obama may not be the best president in U.S. history. But at least he's semi-competent. Unlike Bush.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Patrick says
Hey now, Michael Jackson managed to do it somehow.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
iwog says
My focus is actually aimed at the AWESTRUCK during his original campaign. What a carnival. The marketing of a charismatic leader is the primary goal. The empty , baseless promises just never end. I remember the entire country bowing & chanting in a meditative state. "ALLA CHANGE ALLLLLA CHANGE IS COMING ALLLA". Yes we can change it for the people's benefit. Reminds me of the Sierra club going door to door at the apartment complex's asking for signatures of those who would like more open space. "Would YOU like change"? Would you like an $8000.00 credit for buying an overpriced house ? Let's close that prison camp !
He promised CHANGE ! He CHANGED his mind ? YOU knuckleheads.
A politician's promise carries NO weight, NO accountability. He was advised that he could save the people from the housing crisis, or he could save the banks.
PEOPLE, PLEASE STOP choosing the pretty ones. Soon we will have Buxom Blondes acting confident & deciding our future.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
TMAC54 says
I'm satisfied with his performance considering the context of his administration. You want to distill his entire administration into "LOOKIE $8000!" and "HE DIDN'T CLOSE GITMO DID HE!" but I'm not biting because those are trite issues compared to what Obama actually did for this country. Here are his accomplishments, his failures due entirely to Republicans, and his personal failures.
Accomplishments:
1. Got our military out of Iraq
2. Killed Bin Laden
3. Passed health care reform
4. Passed a stimulus package that probably prevented a deep depression
5. Saved GM
6. Oversaw Bush's bank bailouts repaid in full
7. Ended the idiotic war on terror
8. Ended "extraordinary rendition" (torture)
9. Instructed the justice department to resume antitrust actions
10. Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Failures due entirely to Republicans:
1. Unable to modify the health care reform bill or fix problems
2. Unable to raise taxes on the richest Americans while keeping tax cuts for working Americans intact
3. Blocked in implementing financial reform including appointing a director to the CFPB
4. Blocked in granting further stimulus during the depression
Obama's personal failures:
1. Failed to fill his cabinet with academics instead of financial insiders
2. Failed to install the government transparency he promised
3. Failed to play hardball when it came to tax reform
4. Failed to oppose erosion of civil rights by supporting Bush era legislation
5. Refuses to stop his justice department from prosecuting marijuana crimes.
6. Did not close Gitmo although although much of this can also be blamed on Republican stupidity in blocking domestic incarceration of prisoners.
A Republican president would be worse in almost every single category. There's no possible way to rationalize voting for Mitt Romney, unless you really honestly thought George Bush did a good job.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
I can't help but agree. For all Obama's shortcomings, he's better than Mitt "Corporations are People" Romney. The Republican Party has gone hard-right on economic issues at the same time the middle class is disappearing.
Obama's got a good chance of winning. Rednecks aren't going to vote for a Mormon. Although some might do so just to get a black guy out of the White House.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
I certainly hope so although I never thought Romney could actually pull off a win in the primaries. It just goes to show how important money has become to the election process.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,080 comments
TMAC54 says
Yes, true. And who knows what might have happened if republicans were willing to help him be successful. The idea of his success was what they fought vigorously against.
I think it's widely understood that Obama anticipated being post partisan(that was the big hope), and republicans were not about to let him have that kind of success.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,188 threads
6,157 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
marcus says
I think that is exactly correct.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
Good point. Santorum was the populist candidate, and we all know how long he lasted.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
People forget that Americans elected Obama by the widest margin of any Democrat in more than 40 years, and handed his party substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. Blaming the Republican minority in Congress for everything that happened in 2009-2011 ignores the math. The Democrats' biggest problem remains ObamaCare, which Obama had campaigned against in 2008 when it was called Hillary's Plan, and which cost Democrats the House in 2010.
Comparing Obama to Bush is like comparing Obama to the iceberg that sank the Titanic. It doesn't say much about Obama. If you look at the policies Obama campaigned on, you can see what Americans were ready to vote for. Then look at what actually happened.
iwog's list of accomplishments is unfortunately superficial. For example, regarding #1, it would be more accurate to say "replaced our military in Iraq with private contractors that waste billion$ more" (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/War-goes-on-as-contractors-stay-behind-2423804.php). Calling ObamaCare an accomplishment really depends on your POV, it makes $$$$ for the revenue recipients including DC lobbyists, but most Americans never supported it and still don't. But, regarding bin Laden, Obama did succeed where both his predecessors failed, so on that accomplishment if nothing else he will likely win a second term. If the election is about ObamaCare, Democrats lose, but if it is about bin Laden, Obama wins.
As for whom to blame, any accurate list would need to include the people who told him what he wanted to hear instead of the truth. Somehow he got the notion that he could abandon the healthcare plan he had campaigned on, and campaign instead for what he had previously campaigned against, and somehow Hillary's Plan would be better if re-branded ObamaCare. I don't know who told him to sign his name onto that POS, but whoever it was definitely belongs on the list of people to blame for the fact that so little was actually accomplished. Every president has both friends and enemies, but sycophants can be more dangerous than enemies.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
curious2 says
The math is the democrats held a filibuster proof majority in the senate for 12 weeks in the spring '09, until ted kennedy got too sick to come to work anymore, and another 15 weeks at then end of '09, though Congress was out for the holidays for much of that time, until Scott Brown took over in January '10.
So of the two years they really had more like 6 months. Getting health care reform and the stimulus was all the time they had.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
david1 says
Scott Brown campaigned promising to be the 41st vote to stop ObamaCare. He even signed autographs, "Scott 41." If not for ObamaCare, Kennedy could have retired gracefully and endorsed a Democrat to replace him in a landslide victory. Instead Senate Democrats voted Christmas eve for ObamaCare, and voters tried to stop it. To say Democrats had too little time to do more reverses cause and effect: the reason their time was cut off was because voters disapproved of what they were doing.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
This is unbelievable revisionism and pure nonsense.
The bankruptcy reform act of 2000 was vetoed by Bill Clinton and was finally passed in 2005. It was incredible that Democrats were able to accomplish a health care reform bill in less than a year.
Your friend Scott Brown is leaving the Senate in January.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
iwog says
It is accurate history. If you can disprove any part of it, please post a link. Otherwise, you're spouting tribal slogans and mantras, not facts.
iwog says
I have never met Scott Brown, but polls put him slightly ahead of his opponent or within the margin of error:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74725.html
If you have any polls that put him behind, please post.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
What happened in the Massachusetts Senate race is totally irrelevant to the time it takes for major legislation to pass both houses. The fact that Newscorp propaganda made health care reform unpopular due to lying about death panels doesn't change "cause and effect" as you call it, even if that was the reason for Scott Brown winning the election.
Your history might be accurate, your analysis certainly isn't.
I could just as accurately blame the immoral and unprecedented actions of the Republican party in Minnesota for delaying Al Franken's inclusion into the Senate until July 7th.
curious2 says
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_320.pdf
If Rasmussen is reporting Warren ahead by 1 point, she's probably ahead by at least 7. Rasmussen is the most biased and inaccurate polling agency out there.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2012_massachusetts_senate
curious2 says
Did anyone actually do this?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
Is this supposed to be a joke? Superficial???
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
iwog says
Umm, it seemed that you blamed them for all the "failures do [sic] entirely to Republicans." BTW, please look up the difference between "do" and "due."
iwog says
It isn't a joke. Your analysis was superficial.
As for the Brown/Warren campaign, thank you for supplying polls, some favor each candidate, we will see how it turns out. November remains more than half a year away, and January remains nine months away. You state your predictions unequivocally, as if an article of faith. I will wait for the evidence.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,637 comments
curious2 says
I'd say when you resort to pointing out grammatical mistakes, you've lost the debate.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
Oh, you caught a typo. Thanks, I corrected it. Soooooo.....who blamed Republicans for everything that happened between 2009-2011?
curious2 says
That's all you have to say about this? Obama pulled out what....220,000 troops, left 5000 embassy security contractors plus a support staff, and you call it superficial? How is this not absurdly disingenuous?
McCain promised no surrender in Iraq. Obama promised to bring the troops home. I think this is one of the most significant accomplishments of the Obama administration and calling it superficial is a desperate attempt to discount it.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
curious2 says
tatupu70 says
I am not sure what usage of "do" he is referring to, as his quoted statement below:
iwog says
Is the correct usage of "do."
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
As Iwog reminded me, Al Franken was not sworn in until after Ted Kennedy was too sick to vote, thus, the 12 weeks between January 2009 and March 2009 that Kennedy was showing up in the Senate still did not give Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority.
I amend my statement to 15 weeks at the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 as the only time Democrats had full control of both houses plus the presidency.
Nevertheless, do Obama and the democrats have shortcomings? Absolutely. The individual mandate. SOPA. NDAA. Gitmo. Al-Awlaki. Bailout II. To name just a few. All of these things are wrong, and most of the blame for all rests with Obama.
But if you have even one shread of brain, then you must know that the Ryan budget, as one example, is simply disastrous for this country. If you want to see unemployment hit 20% again, elect Romney, give the Republicans both houses and let them "starve the beast" while reducing top tax rates to 25% and eliminating capital gains and estate taxes in a time when deficits are at an all time high. Is that a scare tactic? Yes. But it is also fact.
GDP is Consumer Spending ($10.7T) + Government Spending($3T) + Investment by Business($2.4T) + Net Exports($-.6T). Cutting government spending by $1T on social programs would reduce GDP by $1T. Much (if not all) of the money spent on Government social programs is recirculated through the economy by the recipients of that spending in the form of consumer spending. Lets conservatively say half, so another $.5T. Total $1.5T reduction. Now reducing taxes will give consumers more disposable income to spend, so lets say that total tax receipts decrease 20% ($.46T) and none of that is saved and all goes back into the economy. Unlikely but best case. Again using the 1.5 times multiplier for the velocity of money makes the total increase in consumer spending $.7T. Net, GDP will fall $.8T unless there is something else making up the difference. ($1T + $.5T - $.7T = $.8T)
Lets say net exports exports remain flat (major changes would take many years without currency collapse). So business investment needs to increase by $.8T just for GDP to remain flat under the Ryan plan. A $.8T increase in business investment when current annual business investment is $2.4T is an increase of 33% in one year for GDP to remain flat. For GDP to grow at a 5% annual rate, business investment would have to increase over 60% in one year from its current level.
If you believe that is happening, well, going back to my original statement, you don't have one shread of brain.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
This thread raised a number of interesting comments, and some people posed questions for me so I'll reply here. Not looking to ignite a flame war, or fall into SIWOTI syndrome, I took a couple of days off.
Regarding Iwog's grammar:
david1 says
iwog says
iwog says
Actually, you wrote it twice, and corrected it only once. That's unusual for a typo.
tatupu70 says
Actually, when some people think that they know everything or are smarter than everyone else, pointing out obvious mistakes is a convenient way of reminding them that they are fallible like the rest of us.
A more significant issue was Iwog's comment that devaluation means rising interest rates. It doesn't. Devaluation means falling currency value, which tends to mean rising consumer prices. Since the housing bubble peak in 2006, when the ratio of asset prices to consumer prices reached incredible levels, house prices have fallen 20-30% while consumer prices have increased 20%-30%. (Also, CPI includes a housing component, and a growing number of adjustments that understate inflation.) Rather than require lenders to recognize losses, DC has bailed out Fannie, Freddie, and banks, all while keeping interest rates below inflation, punishing savers while devaluing the currency. That started before Obama arrived, so the pre-Obama component is obviously not his fault. In the 100 years since the Fed began, with its mandate to maintain a stable currency and promote full employment, the currency has been devalued more than 97% while unemployment has more than doubled. Obama didn't start that, but he went along with it by choosing Timmy Geithner over Paul Volcker for Treasury.
Volcker as Fed chair raised rates, reducing inflation and setting the stage for 30 years of falling rates and rising prosperity. But, it involved significant short-term pain.
david1 says
This thread isn't about Ryan or his budget. You're right that Ryan's budget would be disastrous, but no one would take it seriously if Democrats hadn't lost the House after ObamaCare, and there is no "a" in shred. (See above.) Mainly I reacted to calling ObamaCare an "accomplishment" (though I admit it's a big stinking deal) and blaming Republicans when Democrats had both houses of Congress and the White House.
To be fair, Iwog didn't personally blame the Republicans for everything that went wrong 2009-2011. Having seen that pattern too many times, I reacted too quickly there.
iwog says
Yes, but bringing this back to the topic of the thread, it wouldn't be possible for a Republican to poll evenly with the incumbent if not for Democrats' self-inflicted wounds, especially ObamaCare. I hope that doesn't sound too much like the Democrats' tendency to convene circular firing squads when they lose. The election remains months away. There is still time to admit mistakes and try to solve them. Mitt's only winning issue is repealing ObamaCare, which is ironic because it's based on RomneyCare. Calling ObamaCare/RomneyCare an "accomplishment" doesn't look like a first step towards admitting it was a mistake. Campaigning on it would likely produce a 2012 result very similar to 2010. Blaming other people isn't conducive to recovery. There is always opposition, the issue is how to assemble a platform worth running on and voting for.
Follow
Befriend (1)
248 threads
4,716 comments
TMAC54 says
I was called racist when I pegged him as that when he was on the 2008 campaign trail. Like mention song and dance and a black man in the same breath and the apologist automatically think Al Jolson.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
There aren't any self-inflicted wounds. Health care reform was widely supported before the right wing propaganda machine got to it.
On Monday I was listening to the Michael Savage radio show and he said that Obama has lost the war in Iraq.
The problem is not Democratic leadership. The problem is a well funded and dishonest propaganda network that has the ability to brainwash enough Americans to throw competent people out of office. For the 2012 election, this problem has been amplified by Republicans in the Supreme Court removing all spending limits.
curious2 says
A significant devaluation of a nation's currency always means rising interest rates. Show me an exception.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
God Bless America.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,098 comments
iwog says
I am not real checked out in this subject, as you know, but hasn't the value of the USD went down over the last 10 years while interest rates have also when down?
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,080 comments
Devaluation of the currency is not exactly the same as the value against other currencies decreasing. (that is, that isn't the definition)
That is, If it's devalued, it goes down against other currencies, but if it goes down against other currencies, it doesn't have to be because it's devalued.
In fact, looking at just the variable of interest rates (alone), decreasing interest rates, with other countries not decreasing their interest rates (as much), should cause our currency to go down against theirs. (holding all other variables constant).
These things are complicated, and sometimes paradoxical.
It's like with real estate. Inflation should cause RE prices to go up. But sometimes in the short run, inflation causes interest rates to go up (the cost of money), resulting in lower RE prices (at least for a while - since people look at their monthly financing cost).
The only thing that's always true, is that it sure is good to have A LOT of capital and to be able to take advantage of all the opportunities that the changes bring.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
david1 says
That's why GDP is not a very good measure of wealth or prosperity. In your example above where did 50% of the money distributed in social programs but not spent go to and why did cutting government spending by 1T only reduce taxes by .5T another 50% loss? Are you saying it costs 50% of taxes to collect them and another 50% to distribute them?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bap33 says
No, interest rates are a more precise measure of the value of the dollar than things like the CPI and the dollar index. Interest rates represent the market's opinion on future dollar devaluation by people who have the most money.
For all the talk of dollar devaluation, which I was a part of several years before I figured out what was happening, the US dollar has never been stronger while inflation is nearly nonexistant. Likewise interest rates have never been lower.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
TMAC54 says
Hammer Time.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
bob2356 says
Perhaps I wasn't clear. All of the $1T in social program spending goes into the economy. Additionally, that same $1T is then spent AGAIN, all or in some part, due to the velocity of money. That is, after the government pays Medical bill for the Medicare recipient, that money goes to doctors, nurses, medical shareholders, etc. and is then spent again. So you get more than $1 in GDP for every dollar of government spending.
bob2356 says
They are totally unrelated. a decrease in tax recepits is part of the Ryan plan to cut taxes. I estimated this at 20% of 2011 total receipts. $.46T.
You might be figuring out that deficit spending, in fact, does increase GDP.
bob2356 says
Not what I am saying at all. I hope I was more clear this time around.
In short, I am saying that for the economy as a whole, it would be better if there was less saving and more spending. As shown, business investment is by far the smallest component of GDP (and the economy), therefore lowering taxes to allow more business investment is not as effective at growing the economy as increased demand is.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
david1 says
So we should just have 100% taxes and endless prosperity will be the result.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
wthrfrk80 says
Funny. Of course not, due to deadweight loss. But we should tax and spend at the tax revenue maximizing rate. The Laffer curve exists and is correct. At 100% flat tax rates, revenue is not as high as it is at some lower point. Current tax structure is such that we are below the rate of maximum revenue. Further raising beyond that point reduces revenue.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
david1 says
Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
And the biggest drag on the economy is...GOVERNMENT.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
How is cutting government going to get money to consumers? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer this.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,244 comments
Premium
iwog says
Look at the USD during the period 2000-2012. The Euro used to be $0.80, now it's $1.30. The Canadian Dollar used to be USD $0.70, now it's over USD $1.00. Oil used to be less than $10/bbl, now it's over $100/bbl. The USD has devalued dramatically during the period, yet interest rates have fallen.
Interest rates reflect the supply and demand for credit. For much of the period, Asian savers bought U.S. debt, keeping American interest rates low. Now, the Fed lends $ to banks at zero and buys U.S. debt (both treasuries and mortgage-backed securities in "Operation Twist.") The currency continues to devalue, but interest rates remain low.
The Fed decided that deflation was bad, so it set a policy of promoting inflation, i.e. devaluation. It is also possible to have competitive devaluation, i.e. if countries try simultaneously to devalue, which leads to inflation without necessarily changing exchange rates.
Official CPI is understated due to the drop in housing prices and the adjustments, e.g. hedonistic adjustment that says a new TV is worth more than an old one because the new one has more scan lines. (Nevermind that if your favorite show gets cancelled, the new TV may be worth less; these adjustments ratchet only one way.) Even with those adjustments, CPI is at its highest level ever:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
The numbers show the USD has never been weaker in terms of consumer purchasing power than it is right now.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
The USD has no value other than what it can buy. It doesn't matter what the dollar index says or how the dollar compares to other currencies. Neither can you index the dollar's value to oil. (index it to natural gas and see what you get then)
We are not in a period of dollar devaluation, in fact inflation is very very low by all historic measurements.