Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Barack Obama's progress
Coming down to earth
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
The president has had a bumpy ride in his first two months
All this means that Mr Obamas first two months in office are difficult to evaluate. But a few things seem pretty clear. This is a strikingly ambitious president: he wants to be transformative in more than just the sense of being the first black president. But so far his presidency has been vitiated by a combination of incompetence and a willingness to fall back on the very tactics that he denounced as a candidate. Indeed, his desire to be transformative may be contributing to his problems, distracting him from the economic crisis.
Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
Seriously, it seems more than possible. Not only did he spend the campaign warning of 'collapse', he took office saying it was the worst economy since the Great Depression and getting worse. Only massive spending would save it, ignoring that prior to his taking office, 1/2 of nearly a trillion had been spent on financials, with the other 1/2 left to him, which he promptly spent. Then rammed through what made the previous money seem like peanuts, with no qualms at all. UNTIL the markets started to nose-dive. Then tried to talk it up a bit, when a bit of a plateau seemed to set in, started again...Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
I mean this in all seriousness: is it your suggestion that this administration orchestrated the meltdown as preamble to a huge, left-wing power grab?
Now, don't force me to defend this administration.
Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
I mean this in all seriousness: is it your suggestion that this administration orchestrated the meltdown as preamble to a huge, left-wing power grab?
Now, don't force me to defend this administration.
Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
I mean this in all seriousness: is it your suggestion that this administration orchestrated the meltdown as preamble to a huge, left-wing power grab?
Now, don't force me to defend this administration.
McCain, like Obama backed the first TARP, over the objections of many voters. I think it's become abundantly clear that that was the wrong way to go, though it seems many thought it right at the time. I would give the benefit of the doubt to those that did. At this point, no, seems insanity of so many fronts. They should fail if that's what they're going to do.Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
I mean this in all seriousness: is it your suggestion that this administration orchestrated the meltdown as preamble to a huge, left-wing power grab?
Now, don't force me to defend this administration.
Well...no.
That's not exactly what I am saying.
But we have to admit that during the campaign we hadn't yet hit the wall, so the speeches of both candidates didn't in any way reflect the reality that we're facing now.
Obama can no more follow through on his campaign promises than McCain could have.
Does anyone here really think that McCain's puppet masters would have not make him do exactly what obama is doing as it regards the TARP bailout?
And while I do NOT doubt that the $740 bailout would have been significantly different the only major difference would have been that different sets of gangsters would have gottne that money.
Anyone disagree?
Does anyone here really think McCain would have NOT given $ 9 TILLION to the banks?
McCain, like Obama backed the first TARP, over the objections of many voters. I think it's become abundantly clear that that was the wrong way to go, though it seems many thought it right at the time. I would give the benefit of the doubt to those that did. At this point, no, seems insanity of so many fronts. They should fail if that's what they're going to do.
And while I do NOT doubt that the $740 bailout would have been significantly different the only major difference would have been that different sets of gangsters would have gottne that money.
Anyone disagree?
Does anyone here really think McCain would have NOT given $ 9 TILLION to the banks?
Bush Warns Of 'Long And Painful Recession' - Money News Story - KSBW The Central Coast
Bush Warns Of 'Long And Painful Recession'
McCain, Obama Issue Joint Statement
POSTED: 2:44 am PDT September 24, 2008
Pressing urgently for a massive financial bailout, President George W. Bush said the nation faces a "long and painful recession" if Congress fails to act. He said, "our entire economy is in danger."
And while I do NOT doubt that the $740 bailout would have been significantly different the only major difference would have been that different sets of gangsters would have gottne that money.
Anyone disagree?
Does anyone here really think McCain would have NOT given $ 9 TILLION to the banks?
Yes, I disagee.
The motivation isn't there for McCain to take over the economic system.
But he DID support the AIG bailout, didn't he?
Between the President and the Senator, where do you see the socialist tendencies and viewpoints?
What you call socialism, I call classism. What CLASS is McCain in, dear?
You know who said he would like to "spread the wealth."
McCain definitely supported spread the wealth to AIG, did he not?
Fess' up: left-pollicies -> trillions in bail-outs
No, you fess up...who started bailing out the wealthiest people on earth?
Bush II, right?
Or is Bush II a socialist?
Bush Warns Of 'Long And Painful Recession' - Money News Story - KSBW The Central Coast
Bush Warns Of 'Long And Painful Recession'
McCain, Obama Issue Joint Statement
POSTED: 2:44 am PDT September 24, 2008
Pressing urgently for a massive financial bailout, President George W. Bush said the nation faces a "long and painful recession" if Congress fails to act. He said, "our entire economy is in danger."
In January, McCain supported a resolution to oppose the releasing of the remaining TARP funds because he said he had seen no evidence that the additional and substantial expenditure of taxpayers money would be used for its intended purpose.But he DID support the AIG bailout, didn't he?
TARP, or the Troubled Assets Relief Program, was created to allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in toxic assets from financial institutions to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and to stimulate the economy. The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined with a lack of transparency promised by former Secretary Paulson were reason enough to oppose releasing additional funds, McCain maintained.
Newsmax.com - John McCain: Obama Turning America Into 'A Land of Limited Opportunities'
Without class-warfare where would the left be?What you call socialism, I call classism. What CLASS is McCain in, dear?
Note above quote. Unlike you, he saw the error involved.McCain definitely supported spread the wealth to AIG, did he not?
Fess' up: left-pollicies -> trillions in bail-outs
Would that be referencing the money President Bush, correctly, gave to every taxpayer? You know, the one that resulted in 52 straight months of job creation, the longest in our history.No, you fess up...who started bailing out the wealthiest people on earth?
Bush II, right?
Or would you like to point out the following, which gives the lie to your facts and your politics:
"Conclusion. Since the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax reforms, the share of total income received by the wealthy has increased; however, their share of the total tax burden has increased even more than their income share. In other words, Bush's reforms have helped mitigate the income gap between rich and poor by increasing the progressivity of the income tax system."
Tax Code Became More Progressive after the Bush Tax*Cuts - Brief Analysis #606
Does anyone but me question the timing of the meltdown?
How odd that it happened immediately AFTER the election.
In January, McCain supported a resolution to oppose the releasing of the remaining TARP funds because he said he had seen no evidence that the additional and substantial expenditure of taxpayers money would be used for its intended purpose.But he DID support the AIG bailout, didn't he?I stand corrected then.
TARP, or the Troubled Assets Relief Program, was created to allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in toxic assets from financial institutions to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and to stimulate the economy. The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined with a lack of transparency promised by former Secretary Paulson were reason enough to oppose releasing additional funds, McCain maintained.
Newsmax.com - John McCain: Obama Turning America Into 'A Land of Limited Opportunities'
Well my respect for McCain goes up then.
Without class-warfare where would the left be?
Without class warfare there's be no left or right. Without class warfare there's only be Americans and we'd be doing far better than most of us are now.
Note above quote. Unlike you, he saw the error involved.
Unlike me?
No, you fess up...who started bailing out the wealthiest people on earth?
Bush II, right?
Would that be referencing the money President Bush, correctly, gave to every taxpayer? You know, the one that resulted in 52 straight months of job creation, the longest in our history.
No that would be the bailout of AIG, rapidly followed by various other bailouts which are so numberous and confusing I have trouble keeping them straight.
Or would you like to point out the following, which gives the lie to your facts and your politics:
"Conclusion. Since the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax reforms, the share of total income received by the wealthy has increased; however, their share of the total tax burden has increased even more than their income share. [quopte]
I'd like to see those numbers....especially those which include the aggregate increases in their wealth IN COMPARISON TO THE DECLINING WEALTH OF THE REST OF US.
Come on, that's along the lines of "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas."Without class warfare there's only be Americans and we'd be doing far better than most of us are now.
You know that class warfare is a psychological election ploy, and doesn't indicate that "we would be doing far better..."
Here's the proof: you wouldn't rather live in any other country.
"Conclusion. Since the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax reforms, the share of total income received by the wealthy has increased; however, their share of the total tax burden has increased even more than their income share. [quopte]
BTW, in addition to the progressive taxes which result in the top 50% paying about 96.3% of taxes, how would you like to see the return rates: how much of federal spending goes to the top, middle and lower earners?I'd like to see those numbers....especially those which include the aggregate increases in their wealth IN COMPARISON TO THE DECLINING WEALTH OF THE REST OF US.
"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. "
The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?
Barack Obama's progress
Coming down to earth
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
The president has had a bumpy ride in his first two months
All this means that Mr Obamas first two months in office are difficult to evaluate. But a few things seem pretty clear. This is a strikingly ambitious president: he wants to be transformative in more than just the sense of being the first black president. But so far his presidency has been vitiated by a combination of incompetence and a willingness to fall back on the very tactics that he denounced as a candidate. Indeed, his desire to be transformative may be contributing to his problems, distracting him from the economic crisis.
First of all, I hate to say I told you so...
If you'd like to see the new position taken by many who originally supported Obama, then read this article below.
Barack Obama's progress | Coming down to earth | The Economist
