Tide Turning Against Obama?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sinatra, Feb 11, 2009.

  1. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
  2. Jon
    Offline

    Jon The CPA

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    8,101
    Thanks Received:
    1,276
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR
    Ratings:
    +1,281
    I've been enjoying Obama's quick fall from the pedestal. It won't be long before he hits ground zero.
     
  3. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

    So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.
     
  4. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    Blahahaha.

    :lol:

    more please...
     
  5. Munin
    Offline

    Munin VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +95
    You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  6. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    That is not 'stimulus' it's all about spending on pet causes.

    Leadership would be cutting spending and getting the budget under control, not more crazy stuff.
     
  7. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Obama told us we were going to spend a lot on infrastructure. I didn't have a problem with that. The rest of it however, is spending we don't need. On top of everything, the entire bill is very haphazard. Throw some money here, throw some there, throw some up there and some more down there. Then get on knees and pray. Where is the strategy? What are they trying to accomplish? Do they have any clue, or is this just like putting as much money as we can on the longshot horse, hoping to strike gold?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005

    Dude, if Obama had to do much pushing when his own party dominates both the House and the Senate, that is a sign of a weakness.

    C'mon now - you really want to go on record here in full support of this stimulus bill?

    If so, then you need say no more...
     
  9. Munin
    Offline

    Munin VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +95
    No that would be failed leadership in this situation (let the economy go to hell and take a seat for the ride DOWN), if it was not a huge economic crisis right now then I would agree with you because of the debt we have. But an economic crisis will cause the debt to go higher anyway if nothing is done about it and it will also permanently damage the source of income (the economy), if you let your economy seriously injured then it will take you years more to recover. In those years you will be unable to pay of debt, so it is better to try to reverse the negative spiral in the economy or at least stabilize it. It will cost money, but the money will eventually flow back (don't forget that spend money also flows back to the government: taxes).

    It is an investment: invest now and the recovery will be earlier, which means more and a stable income for the government earlier. This will probably spare you money (on the long run), because you are securing your income for the next years.

    The devastation done by an economic crash would mean that the economy would not give the government, workers & businesses enough income for at least some years. This will lead to more debt, probably even much more debt than what we have spend now to INVEST in the economy.


    The problem is that a lot of people tend to simplify things too much, they think that the government & economy is the same as a business and that it now seems that the business (= only the government) is going bankrupt. But this is not comparable at all because a business only needs to worry about one side (supply), while this is a demand and supply problem (economy) where you need to secure both sides. And consumers are the ones who make the businesses make money, if they don't have a job (or have a future in which they might lose one) then the businesses don't have one either. The government is the one who has to at least change the perception and give a big number of these people work so they can then again give other people jobs by government spending (a positive snowball effect).
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  10. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    The campaign is over and the training wheels are off, and this President don't yet know how to ride the bike...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page