|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456 |
My second link was comments (quotes) by political figures ..... not analysis.
Totally different animal.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,068 Likes: 1115
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,068 Likes: 1115 |
Got it.
I also got the same "angle of slant" that Mac's link provided.
So tell me.... Dawg 2 Dawg:
1. Has Obama been a dismal failure?
2. Has Obama been a mixed bag of positives and negatives?
3. Has Obama been just about wha you expected?
4. Has Obama been something (to you) that wasn't covered in the first 3 questions?
Y.... THESE questions frame the kind of political discourse that engages me. Mainstream 'talking points' have never done it for me. I prefer to know WHY a person thinks what he thinks.... and questions like these help me to get to the heart (and mind) of the person who talks with me.
I realize that this thread risks being hijacked by my post, so please- feel free to hit me with a PM... I really wanna know what you think.
Best,
Clem
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456 |
For me, Obama has been about what I expected him to be ..... which is a guy who spends a lot of money and really accomplishes little.
One regard in which he has been far less than I expected is in the leadership area. Its seemed like this was going to be an area where he would excel ..... and even if/though I disagree with his principles and policies, I expected him to accomplish far more than he did .... especially considering that his party controlled the entire government unconditionally for the first 2 or so years of his term.
I see very little that he has accomplished on the positive side. The economy has stumbled and staggered along. Unemployment is still at abnormal highs. He has taken over companies, and done so in a way that they can never be divested under the current terms of their agreements. GM's value will never rise to where the government can sell its share under the terms of the agreement that would "pay back" the taxpayers.
He has taken advantage of energy policies out in place by his predecessor, and tried to take credit for private enterprise doing business on private land.
I look at major areas of a President's duties ...... and have a hard time finding any real advances. He has done little for the economy, and it could be argued that he has done more to stall the economy than start it.
His refusal to pass any kind of long term tax policy, or budget, and his total lack of leadership (which I define as the ability to lead others to accomplishment) have been his biggest failures as I see it. I think that his foreign policy has been so inside out and upside down that no one knows where we stand in the world.
He, and his Party, have stubbornly refused to pass a budget in any form whatsoever.
I find very little that he has done that I agree with. The only major accomplishment he has that I applaud is the killing of bin Laden ... but if his policies had been in effect all along, we never would have been able to get the information that led to his death.
I think that his Presidency has been one of very little positive consequence.
What would you consider to be his major accomplishments?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I am probably rambling a bit here ..... pain meds just took effect and all
Don't worry, I ramble on and on and I'm not even taking pain meds. 
Quote:
I look at the current unemployment rate, and it is a lagging indicator ..... but I look at the rates, by year from 2001 - 2008 ..... even with wars, attacks, recession, and so on, were 4.7, 5.8, 6.0, 5.5, 5.1, 4.6, 4.6, and 5.8.
Not playing the blame game here, just trying to look at the economics. Most of these strong employment numbers were predicated on a housing bubble. Trillions upon trillions of excess wealth was misallocated to housing. I know this b/c when housing was exposed as a bubble, the first jobs to go were related to housing, followed secondarily by service jobs. There was no good policy at the heart of those numbers. There was a short term get rich quick scam.
Quote:
Then Obama took office, and yes things were bad ..... but he set out to "rescue" GM and Chrysler, spent a bunch of money we didn't have, and promised that the rate wouldn;t go above 7% if we did these things.
His unemployment rates have been 9.3, 9.6, and 8.9% thus far. 2012 seems headed for another 8+% unemployment rate.
I don't think we properly give justice how bad this crisis is. From the US alone, nearly $3 trillion disappeared overnight. It is gone forever, b/c it was based on inflated housing prices due to Wall St. market distortion. That is equivalent to more than 20% of yearly GDP (at the time). Nothing even remotely close to that has happened since the Great Depression. Our response to a $3 trillion hole was an $800 billion stimulus (b/c that is all that was politically viable). It wasn't even close to enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/global/22fund.html
That doesn't even take into account housing bubbles in Spain, Hong Kong, UK, etc. All in all, world wealth took a huge hit. Of the $70 trillion in the "giant pool of money" from worldwide investors in 2006, I bet at least $10 trillion is gone. In fact, its probably quite a bit more. That is why investors have pulled back worldwide. They have no appetite for risk b/c they don't trust the global financial system. I don't blame them.
Actually, this brings me to another point. One of the best things we could do for investment is to regulate the financial system better. If investors thought we had a market where the risks were reflected by prices and transparency was the rule, they might be more inclined to invest. That will never happen. One of the most interesting things I learned yesterday is that the top 20 donors to both Obama and Romney are almost identical. They are the large financial firms, and they are investing in the status quo by paying both sides.
It is entirely your right to be upset with Obama for these situations, but what should really keep you awake at night is that there is little that any president can do to quickly fix the problems that are a direct consequence of them.
Quote:
What actions has Obama taken to try to reduce the unemployment rate? What policies has he shepherded through Congress, even when he had total and unconditional control of Congress, that helped create employment? What has he done to create an environment for employers to start hiring and spending money?
First off, lets stick to the facts. The Senate never had more than 58 Democrats, and as we know due to complete overuse of the filibuster, that isn't enough. No one had total and unconditional control. Same went for Bush when Democrats used the filibuster during his term.
As for policies, there isn't anything that any person can do to create employment in the current climate other than direct stimulus. Take corporations for example: their tax rate is in no danger of going up, there are actually bipartisan discussions of it going down. The tax rate is competitive; even though the rates look high on paper, effective rates for most after deductions are in the 15% range. They may be subject to some regulation, but lets be honest, courts during the 20th century gave corporations all the benefits of individuals with almost none of the liability. And yet in this favorable climate, they are sitting on the sidelines.
You can take this a step further. Even if you don't believe any of what I just typed, look at China. They have the most favorable regulations and taxes in the world for corporations, at the expense of the public good. Yet unemployment in China has started to tick up, growth has slowed, and corporations are not "creating jobs" there either. This problem is way, way bigger than tax policy and regulation.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/economicnews/view/1200186/1/.html
Quote:
So then we get into the Obama budgets. The Democrats really couldn't wait to get spending ..... even increasing the amount of food stamps people got, and explaining how unemployment was a stimulus. The federal budget deficits under Obama and the Democrats have been right around $1.3 trillion per year. This has been with horrible economic conditions, and with improving economic conditions. There's been no budget ... so we don't really know what money is supposed to go where ..... things are just kind of on automatic. The one thing that the Democrats did do was to make sure that Obamacare would be funded no matter what ...... because they built the funding right into the bill. The law itself has to be repealed or amended in order to cut any of the spending in Obamacare. It's not part of the budget process.
Most of this paragraph is a fairy tale. Most of the spending increases are automatic stabilizers (saftey net) during recession. Is the solution to cut the safety net at the most desperate time for Americans, the time when people truly need it? Food stamps have been expanded, but it wasn't some devious plan to ensare the poor; it was simply that many, many more people have become eligible. Unemployment is a stimulus, and has been accepted as so by most serious economists, both liberal and conservative alike. Deficits are largely driven by recession. Tax revenues went way down, the safety net kicked in and that spending went up. The reason that number isn't getting any better is because the underlying economy did recover a bit, but its largely been a jobless recovery, keeping tax receipts low and assistance high.
Obamacare is not outside the budget process. Republicans have been fighting each and every provision that Congress needs to decide on. Also, it was passed by reconciliation, which can only be used for budget provisions.
Quote:
To me that's how government should work. Regulate industries, but work with them when there are problems so that they can be worked out in a manner that serves both the business and public interests.
Let's look at the federal government's stance on energy issues. One of the things that Obama said when he came into office is that he wanted to kill clean coal technology. Instead of looking at whether or not such technology could be improved upon even more, especially vital since we have enormous coal reserves, he just wants to kill it.
As to your first sentence, I agree with that 100% that that is how it should be.
For your second sentence, I don't remember that at all. Do you have a link to him saying that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
To me that's how government should work. Regulate industries, but work with them when there are problems so that they can be worked out in a manner that serves both the business and public interests.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually do that. Unfortunately, the way our political system is set up is... if you actually meet with energy firms to work out energy issues.. then you are "in their pocket"... and if you meet with environmentalists to work out energy issues, then you are just a moron... and if you meet with bankers, pharmaceuticals, etc to work out the issues in their industry, then you are an idiot... What we need to do is write banking regulation without any input of bankers.  The failure or breakdown in this is that the industry SHOULD work with politicians to develop policies that affect their business, then politicians should balance that against the public good and possible traps... the politicians are not doing their job because the money from these industries is greater than the politicians needs to protect the public..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,834 Likes: 158
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,834 Likes: 158 |
That would be nice. all the government seems to want to do is punish punish punish.. They, for whatever reason forget that industry makes the world go round..
And in never seems to matter what party is in power.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,373 Likes: 456 |
Quote:
First off, lets stick to the facts. The Senate never had more than 58 Democrats, and as we know due to complete overuse of the filibuster, that isn't enough. No one had total and unconditional control. Same went for Bush when Democrats used the filibuster during his term.
While this is true .... it's not entirely true.
The Democrats had 58 Democrats, plus 2 Independents who caucus with them in Sanders and Leibermann. They had a 60 vote advantage, especially on an issues like healthcare that a true Socialist like Sanders was all in favor of.
Then they had the VP on top of that in the unlikely event that they would ever have a tie on any issue. (which, to the best of my recollection, was never necessary)
As far as coal, just google "Obama kill coal", and you'll get thousands of links,
Here is the direct quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-kills-coal-as-promised/
“If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
especially on an issues like healthcare that a true Socialist like Sanders was all in favor of.
Actually, Sanders didn't like it, primarily because it's not socialist at all (it's actually fascist).
He was non-committal down to the wire, and voted 'Yes' after they gave Vermont protections from Medicare cuts and expanded federal Medicaid funding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
While this is true .... it's not entirely true.
The Democrats had 58 Democrats, plus 2 Independents who caucus with them in Sanders and Leibermann. They had a 60 vote advantage, especially on an issues like healthcare that a true Socialist like Sanders was all in favor of.
My mistake. You are correct that they effectively had 60 votes for 6 months, although there are several D's that leaned towards the center and certainly wouldn't have been a rubber stamp.
Quote:
As far as coal, just google "Obama kill coal", and you'll get thousands of links,
Here is the direct quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-kills-coal-as-promised/
“If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
I thought you said kill clean coal technology earlier? That is quite different from traditional non-clean coal-fired plants.
As far as i know, both Obama and McCain supported clean coal, and I'm pretty sure there was even money in the stimulus bill for advanced research on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
1. Has Obama been a dismal failure?
2. Has Obama been a mixed bag of positives and negatives?
3. Has Obama been just about wha you expected?
4. Has Obama been something (to you) that wasn't covered in the first 3 questions?
I know it wasn't directed at me, but I would like to answer.
1. No he hasn't been a dismal failure. When you look back several decades from now, I believe history will compare two times: the transition into the Great Depression and 2008-present, b/c the scales of those global contractions are comparable. I've come to this conclusion by reading a number of books, including one by a journalist (Peter Goodman), one by a conservative economist (Arthur Laffer), one by Paul Krugman, by reading large chunks of the Financial Crisis Commission inquiry, by reading the transcript of an NPR program called "The Giant Pool of Money," and finally by reading a report from the CBO, as well as articles by a number of economists and journalists. As tough as its been for a lot of people, we are much, much better off than the early 30's. In contrast, the actions/policies in the 30's served to make the crisis much, much worse.
2. Like any president, he has both positive and negative moments. I have not been happy with the continued prosecution of war in Afghanistan after we got Bin Laden, esp. when troops coming home don't know what the hell they are fighting for anymore (at least the one I talked to). All signs point to the main strength of Al Queda being in the Arabian Peninsula.
I have read a 13 page summary of the health care bill put out by the Kaiser family foundation, and I feel that it was an honest attempt to make our complex system of private insurance work better. It may ultimately never work, but the system as is couldn't be any worse, so we would be crazy not try something different.
I think he did the right thing signing the stimulus, and the right thing signing financial reform, but I think he surrounded himself with the wrong economic people, and both got too watered down to be fully effective.
I think he should be more active in trying to break up the banks. If our problem before the crisis was too big to fail banks, why the hell did we consolidate them into even bigger banks?
I feel he is a good man. Many of his chief rivals say that about him, which tells you something about the quality of his character. John Kasich was on Meet the Press Sunday, and he said he doesn't agree with all his policies, but he really likes Obama, and during a bad rash of tornados, Obama called him directly and asked if there was anything he could do to help.
3. He has been about what I expected. While it could have been easy to get caught up in, I really didn't think he would change Washington.
4. To me, I wish his campaign would highlight his strengths during this election rather than spend time bashing Romney. He can make a real case that he helped save the US economy from total freefall, he made changes to our health care system that will make care more accessible to millions, and he ultimately made the call that got the ultimate villain of our time.
What are your answers to those questions Clem?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Unemployment Rate Rises Again
|
|
