Why did the Democrats and Obama fail this election cycle this year?

[Archangelwolf]

Kudos, sir...or ma'am...whatever. sorry, missed it.

...but you nailed it. elections matter, and Obama had the momentum he needed when he took office. The Democrats should have borrowed from the Bush/Cheney book of the last 8 years and got this thing done pretty. I will give the Republicans credit! They don't care if it is popular or not. They ram it down our throats anyways! I wish the Democrats had that kind of spine.

 

[daveman]

Would you replace it with a dictatorship (of your choice, of course) with no checks and balances?

Most Statists would. They want to be subjects, not citizens.

 

[The T]

Would you replace it with a dictatorship (of your choice, of course) with no checks and balances?

Most Statists would. They want to be subjects, not citizens.

So much for American Exceptionalism eh?

 

[daveman]

Would you replace it with a dictatorship (of your choice, of course) with no checks and balances?

Most Statists would. They want to be subjects, not citizens.

So much for American Exceptionalism eh?

Oh, good Gaea's galloping gazongas, they HATE that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Because the resident Statists of USMB are in a state of denial...

There's no denial. Whot? Yup, you guys won the battle (but you sure ain't won the war yet).

And if you think the American people will settle for EU style Socialism? YOU have another thing coming. Got it?

But of course you fail to recognize that we are so far away from that ever happening, it's funny. I realize that FoxNews, et al., hammers that into you day in and day out, so it's what you believe, just like any good lemming.

IF we were moving toward true Socialism, a perfect opportunity existed to nationalize the commercial banks when they failed as well as GM and Chrysler. Did that happen? Nope. The banks are paying back taxpayers, with interest, and GM is currently enjoying a huge comback and will begin to pay back probably by the first quarter of next year. Chrysler is still struggling, however, but as yet has been no rumblings of the big bad government doing anything further.

 

[MaggieMae]

Too many posts to read em all so if this has been said here it is again.

Obama has succeeded. Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

Its called destroy the USA, divide the country, anarchy will follow, and the Marxist will win control.

That began with the 2000 election. How old are you, twelve?

 

[MaggieMae]

Posting that you are not an obama supporter in on reply does not negate all the rest of the supportive reply's for obama you have made.

Yeah sure I'm an Obama supporter, I must be since I'm buttkissing the Republitards and Teabaggers, that about narrows it.

Why is since obama has fallen from the pedistal that he was placed on are so many of his past supporters saying they have never supported him?

Same reason Bush supporters claim to be "independents" now. Some people are just to chickenshit to admit they're not winners 100% of the time. It's a sign of the times: Losing isn't allowed anymore.

Frankly, I'd love to grab Obama's ear for about 24 hours of straight talk to him over mistakes he's made--mainly his woefully bad method of communicating to Americans, and give him examples. But that doesn't mean I think everything he has done is bad. It wasn't, and it isn't. And time will prove him absolutely RIGHT on many decisions. For that reason, I'm certainly not ashamed I voted for him and continue to support him.

 

[MaggieMae]

Put simply: because they didn't do what they were elected to do.

They, particularly Obama and Democrats in line with him, successfully campaigned on bringing fundamental reform to the system. Limiting corporate and lobbyist influence in Washington, ending the two disastrous and counterproductive wars, enacting a public option, re-establishing the rule of law, and being far more open and transparent in how they govern.

They did exactly none of that, so the results were quite predictable.

The absolute last reason they lost was because they were "too far left" considering the policies considered "left" that they advocated maintained widespread public support before they abandoned them in favor of simply rebranding the status quo.

The economy, unemployment, and wildly unpopular bailouts in favor of the people who broke the country certainly didn't help either.

I don't think the majority of the American people thought too much about a promise to "reform the system" because they all say they want to do that, so it was nothing new. Where Obama failed to deliver was fighting for a universal health care system, instead bowing to the punditocrity that screamed for something else. And what we wound up with was a Frankenstein monster. THAT is the biggest failure seen by many Democrats who now oppose Obama. As for the bailouts, I think if you deferred to the experts, even on the right, most agree that it was the ONLY thing to do at the time. People that continue to whine about "bailouts" aren't seeing beyond that word, which has a negative implication. As for the investment banks continuing with their little shenanigans? Once again, the financial reform package didn't go nearly far enough to slap them into place.

 

[MaggieMae]

They wasted 18 months trying to get ONE republican senator to vote for the Health care Act They could have rammed through a much better program in the first six months of their administration while they had 60 votes in the Senate.The public got sick of all the deals that finally had to be made to get a skeletal program that will help only the insurance industry and will leave 20 million people without insurance when it FINALLY takes fully effect in 2020

You don't "ram through" anything if you intend to be seen as a leader trying to represent ALL people, and not just those within your party. That's a ******* nobrainer.

 

[MaggieMae]

Would you replace it with a dictatorship (of your choice, of course) with no checks and balances?

Most Statists would. They want to be subjects, not citizens.

Loonytunes response, as usual.

 

[code1211]

Put simply: because they didn't do what they were elected to do.

They, particularly Obama and Democrats in line with him, successfully campaigned on bringing fundamental reform to the system. Limiting corporate and lobbyist influence in Washington, ending the two disastrous and counterproductive wars, enacting a public option, re-establishing the rule of law, and being far more open and transparent in how they govern.

They did exactly none of that, so the results were quite predictable.

The absolute last reason they lost was because they were "too far left" considering the policies considered "left" that they advocated maintained widespread public support before they abandoned them in favor of simply rebranding the status quo.

The economy, unemployment, and wildly unpopular bailouts in favor of the people who broke the country certainly didn't help either.

I don't think the majority of the American people thought too much about a promise to "reform the system" because they all say they want to do that, so it was nothing new. Where Obama failed to deliver was fighting for a universal health care system, instead bowing to the punditocrity that screamed for something else. And what we wound up with was a Frankenstein monster. THAT is the biggest failure seen by many Democrats who now oppose Obama. As for the bailouts, I think if you deferred to the experts, even on the right, most agree that it was the ONLY thing to do at the time. People that continue to whine about "bailouts" aren't seeing beyond that word, which has a negative implication. As for the investment banks continuing with their little shenanigans? Once again, the financial reform package didn't go nearly far enough to slap them into place.

I don't think that most thinking people oppose the bailouts. The financials are either completelypaid back or will be soon. Chrysler may never by. It's owned by Fiat.

Offering a bail out to GM was not a completely bad idea, but the the execution was done with the goal of saving the UAW. How so? The bail out was made because the lack of a bail out was said to be the wsure road to a reorganization. What would have happened in that case?

The UAW would have been out in the cold.

The bail out was made. The reorganization occurred and one of the provisions was that the union would remain intact. This is complete and utter cronyism.

The Bail outs were needed if distastful.

The Failed Stimulus was outright theft. That the argument is about bailouts instead of the Failed Stimulus is proof of the domination of the debate by the benificieries of the paybacks, bribes and graft a of the Failed Stimulus.

The Big 0 will not be viewed as a great President or even a great man when all of this is over. He handed his authority over to the corrupt and Marxist Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and he thereby abandoned any grasp on his own Presidential destiny.

The worst thing a President can be called is weak. The Big 0 is the weakest President in modern history.

 

[MaggieMae]

Put simply: because they didn't do what they were elected to do.

They, particularly Obama and Democrats in line with him, successfully campaigned on bringing fundamental reform to the system. Limiting corporate and lobbyist influence in Washington, ending the two disastrous and counterproductive wars, enacting a public option, re-establishing the rule of law, and being far more open and transparent in how they govern.

They did exactly none of that, so the results were quite predictable.

The absolute last reason they lost was because they were "too far left" considering the policies considered "left" that they advocated maintained widespread public support before they abandoned them in favor of simply rebranding the status quo.

The economy, unemployment, and wildly unpopular bailouts in favor of the people who broke the country certainly didn't help either.

I don't think the majority of the American people thought too much about a promise to "reform the system" because they all say they want to do that, so it was nothing new. Where Obama failed to deliver was fighting for a universal health care system, instead bowing to the punditocrity that screamed for something else. And what we wound up with was a Frankenstein monster. THAT is the biggest failure seen by many Democrats who now oppose Obama. As for the bailouts, I think if you deferred to the experts, even on the right, most agree that it was the ONLY thing to do at the time. People that continue to whine about "bailouts" aren't seeing beyond that word, which has a negative implication. As for the investment banks continuing with their little shenanigans? Once again, the financial reform package didn't go nearly far enough to slap them into place.

I don't think that most thinking people oppose the bailouts. The financials are either completelypaid back or will be soon. Chrysler may never by. It's owned by Fiat.

Offering a bail out to GM was not a completely bad idea, but the the execution was done with the goal of saving the UAW. How so? The bail out was made because the lack of a bail out was said to be the wsure road to a reorganization. What would have happened in that case?

The UAW would have been out in the cold.

The bail out was made. The reorganization occurred and one of the provisions was that the union would remain intact. This is complete and utter cronyism.

The Bail outs were needed if distastful.

The Failed Stimulus was outright theft. That the argument is about bailouts instead of the Failed Stimulus is proof of the domination of the debate by the benificieries of the paybacks, bribes and graft a of the Failed Stimulus.

The Big 0 will not be viewed as a great President or even a great man when all of this is over. He handed his authority over to the corrupt and Marxist Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and he thereby abandoned any grasp on his own Presidential destiny.

The worst thing a President can be called is weak. The Big 0 is the weakest President in modern history.

First of all, "saving the UAW" as the only reason for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is a misnomer. However you want to condense it to make it look like political maneuvering only, without the bailouts of the auto companies, millions MORE would have been laid off, looking for work, looking for unemployment compensation (and extensions), and needing to get on the government "welfare" system. So if no auto bailout is what people wanted, they had no clue how much more devastating it would have been NOT to prop up the #1 industry in the United States.

Second, the stimulus package was NOT a "theft." That's another buzzword offered up by the right wing noise machine. There is evidence all over the place (exept on Fox, et al., of course), that stimulus money indeed got projects moving, saved states from bankruptcy (which were also suffering from lack of projected revenue due to the economy), and kept many people from the unemployment lines, even if temporarily. More than half of the stimulus money targeted tax breaks for small businesses, yet business leaders continue to shout that "Obama isn't business friendy." Did some states misuse their stimulus funds? Indeed they did. Was there fraud? Isn't there always some crook looking to make a buck at the expense of the taxpayer?

Finally, a sitting president has a Constitutional obligation to work with and through the two legislative branches. He can't just dictate the way his preferred policy will be enacted. So to allege that he "turned over" anything to Pelosi and Reid is another misnomer. He had no choice. It took over a year to get a final bill passed, which would indicate to any "thinking" person that a LOT of compromising was taken into consideration, including, contrary to what you won't hear on FoxNews, over 100 amendments put forth by Republicans.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't think the majority of the American people thought too much about a promise to "reform the system" because they all say they want to do that, so it was nothing new. Where Obama failed to deliver was fighting for a universal health care system, instead bowing to the punditocrity that screamed for something else. And what we wound up with was a Frankenstein monster. THAT is the biggest failure seen by many Democrats who now oppose Obama. As for the bailouts, I think if you deferred to the experts, even on the right, most agree that it was the ONLY thing to do at the time. People that continue to whine about "bailouts" aren't seeing beyond that word, which has a negative implication. As for the investment banks continuing with their little shenanigans? Once again, the financial reform package didn't go nearly far enough to slap them into place.

I don't think that most thinking people oppose the bailouts. The financials are either completelypaid back or will be soon. Chrysler may never by. It's owned by Fiat.

Offering a bail out to GM was not a completely bad idea, but the the execution was done with the goal of saving the UAW. How so? The bail out was made because the lack of a bail out was said to be the wsure road to a reorganization. What would have happened in that case?

The UAW would have been out in the cold.

The bail out was made. The reorganization occurred and one of the provisions was that the union would remain intact. This is complete and utter cronyism.

The Bail outs were needed if distastful.

The Failed Stimulus was outright theft. That the argument is about bailouts instead of the Failed Stimulus is proof of the domination of the debate by the benificieries of the paybacks, bribes and graft a of the Failed Stimulus.

The Big 0 will not be viewed as a great President or even a great man when all of this is over. He handed his authority over to the corrupt and Marxist Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and he thereby abandoned any grasp on his own Presidential destiny.

The worst thing a President can be called is weak. The Big 0 is the weakest President in modern history.

First of all, "saving the UAW" as the only reason for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is a misnomer. However you want to condense it to make it look like political maneuvering only, without the bailouts of the auto companies, millions MORE would have been laid off, looking for work, looking for unemployment compensation (and extensions), and needing to get on the government "welfare" system. So if no auto bailout is what people wanted, they had no clue how much more devastating it would have been NOT to prop up the #1 industry in the United States.

Second, the stimulus package was NOT a "theft." That's another buzzword offered up by the right wing noise machine. There is evidence all over the place (exept on Fox, et al., of course), that stimulus money indeed got projects moving, saved states from bankruptcy (which were also suffering from lack of projected revenue due to the economy), and kept many people from the unemployment lines, even if temporarily. More than half of the stimulus money targeted tax breaks for small businesses, yet business leaders continue to shout that "Obama isn't business friendy." Did some states misuse their stimulus funds? Indeed they did. Was there fraud? Isn't there always some crook looking to make a buck at the expense of the taxpayer?

Finally, a sitting president has a Constitutional obligation to work with and through the two legislative branches. He can't just dictate the way his preferred policy will be enacted. So to allege that he "turned over" anything to Pelosi and Reid is another misnomer. He had no choice. It took over a year to get a final bill passed, which would indicate to any "thinking" person that a LOT of compromising was taken into consideration, including, contrary to what you won't hear on FoxNews, over 100 amendments put forth by Republicans.

Seeing as you seem to claim that Fox News mis reports, I would like to point out how you mis-report about Fox News.

Fox News reported on the stimulus projects. The truth about the projects. The money spent and the amount of jobs created. Facts are facts. Many of the projects did not maximize the efficiency of the money in terms of jobs produced. 300K to produce one job is ludicrous and that is why many deem it as a failure. The unemployment rate did not do what Obama promised it would do...and I doubt even YOU fell for the old fall back of "well, think of how bad it could have been without the stimulus". I expected him to say it just as I expected Bush to say "well, at least we got rid of a dictator"...ikt is what politicians do to save face. They spin.

Fox News NEVER said the stimulus did not help states stay afloat. To the contrary, they said that it DID help states stay afloat. And furthermore, giving states money to stay afloat would do just that. Help them stay afloat. It is basic logic. Problem was, the stimulus was not marketed to the people as a means to help states stay afloat. It was marketed as a jobs bill for all intents and purposes. If it was designed to help states stay afloat, there should have been guidelines set in place to ensure those same states made the approprioate moves to become more independant.....

As for Obama handing it over to Pelosi. Many of the times he was asked, he admitted he did not know what was in the bill....he DID pass it off to Prlosi to draft and negotiate. For good or bad, that was what was done..and when you have a super majority, or close to one, the President, who is serving ALL OF THE PEOPLE should ensure it is not a one sided bill.

 

[Nighthawk62]

Lol!! Is that the latest model of thinking by the elite libs? Good luck with that but I'd be planning on an extinction level event in a couple of years if I were a lib....with that line of thinking.

Barack Obama, the avowed socialist!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Put simply: because they didn't do what they were elected to do.

They, particularly Obama and Democrats in line with him, successfully campaigned on bringing fundamental reform to the system. Limiting corporate and lobbyist influence in Washington, ending the two disastrous and counterproductive wars, enacting a public option, re-establishing the rule of law, and being far more open and transparent in how they govern.

They did exactly none of that, so the results were quite predictable.

The absolute last reason they lost was because they were "too far left" considering the policies considered "left" that they advocated maintained widespread public support before they abandoned them in favor of simply rebranding the status quo.

The economy, unemployment, and wildly unpopular bailouts in favor of the people who broke the country certainly didn't help either.

I don't think the majority of the American people thought too much about a promise to "reform the system" because they all say they want to do that, so it was nothing new. Where Obama failed to deliver was fighting for a universal health care system, instead bowing to the punditocrity that screamed for something else. And what we wound up with was a Frankenstein monster. THAT is the biggest failure seen by many Democrats who now oppose Obama. As for the bailouts, I think if you deferred to the experts, even on the right, most agree that it was the ONLY thing to do at the time. People that continue to whine about "bailouts" aren't seeing beyond that word, which has a negative implication. As for the investment banks continuing with their little shenanigans? Once again, the financial reform package didn't go nearly far enough to slap them into place.

I don't think that most thinking people oppose the bailouts. The financials are either completelypaid back or will be soon. Chrysler may never by. It's owned by Fiat.

Offering a bail out to GM was not a completely bad idea, but the the execution was done with the goal of saving the UAW. How so? The bail out was made because the lack of a bail out was said to be the wsure road to a reorganization. What would have happened in that case?

The UAW would have been out in the cold.

The bail out was made. The reorganization occurred and one of the provisions was that the union would remain intact. This is complete and utter cronyism.

The Bail outs were needed if distastful.

I don't agree with the Federal Government interfering with a corporate chapter 11, and flexing their own "bias" into the prerequisite of an established legal structure. There was no bailouts issued when the airline industry was going under, following the 9-11 attacks. The airline industry was able to file for chapter 11, restructure, and successfully rebuild itself WITHOUT government intervention.
As for the auto industry, they brought themselves to this position by not listening to what their customers wanted from an automaker. GM could have been able to financially restructure its business (eliminating saturn, pontiac, etc), like MANY other corporations had before them, without interference from a Federal Government who had no right or "legal" justification for getting involved.

What also drove people to the polls against the democrats WAS the Healthcare bill. They saw the New Orleans and Nebraska bribes, the strong arm from Pelosi to ignore Congress' constituents who stood opposed to the Federal Government take-over of the Healthcare System. They watched the economy, with it's 10% unemployment rate, take a backseat to MONTHS of legislation and closed door deals to push for Healthcare votes.

When the Democrats did make an attempt to turn the economy around, it was through failed spending efforts like "Cash for Clunkers". A plan that didn't do anything but waste taxpayer dollars. A 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill, that nearly equaled the 8 year spending on the Iraq war - at $800 Billion, that was pushed quickly as a means to prevent unemployment from reaching 8%. The tax credit for first time home buyers, that did little to prevent those who couldn't afford a home in the first place (which, if you recall, the economic collapse started with Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae). The open checkbook, with no accountability, given by the Federal Government towards Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Government rebates towards more energy efficiency appliances or alternative energy (like solar panels or electric lawnmowers), which all failed to stimulate jobs.

Then there's the failed view of Obama, as he attempted to attached himself (and his administration accomplishments) with those going for re-election. The voters recalling the passive, nonchalant, response the Obama Administration took when it came time to cleaning up an oil spill. President Obama choosing to instead take the easier road of finding and pointing blame, over government involvement to prevent the oil from reaching the coast. The turning away of foreign aid because they were not associated with any union (showing his leadership priority when handling an environmental catastrophe). Let's not forget Obama's many cameo appearances on late night television, smiling and waving, as the American people who searched for answers to the economy - watched. This was not the kind of change they had hoped for, as the American people saw their President travel to New York City, his wife to Spain, with family trips to europe - all while the american people fought to keep their jobs and homes.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think that most thinking people oppose the bailouts. The financials are either completelypaid back or will be soon. Chrysler may never by. It's owned by Fiat.

Offering a bail out to GM was not a completely bad idea, but the the execution was done with the goal of saving the UAW. How so? The bail out was made because the lack of a bail out was said to be the wsure road to a reorganization. What would have happened in that case?

The UAW would have been out in the cold.

The bail out was made. The reorganization occurred and one of the provisions was that the union would remain intact. This is complete and utter cronyism.

The Bail outs were needed if distastful.

The Failed Stimulus was outright theft. That the argument is about bailouts instead of the Failed Stimulus is proof of the domination of the debate by the benificieries of the paybacks, bribes and graft a of the Failed Stimulus.

The Big 0 will not be viewed as a great President or even a great man when all of this is over. He handed his authority over to the corrupt and Marxist Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and he thereby abandoned any grasp on his own Presidential destiny.

The worst thing a President can be called is weak. The Big 0 is the weakest President in modern history.

First of all, "saving the UAW" as the only reason for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is a misnomer. However you want to condense it to make it look like political maneuvering only, without the bailouts of the auto companies, millions MORE would have been laid off, looking for work, looking for unemployment compensation (and extensions), and needing to get on the government "welfare" system. So if no auto bailout is what people wanted, they had no clue how much more devastating it would have been NOT to prop up the #1 industry in the United States.

Second, the stimulus package was NOT a "theft." That's another buzzword offered up by the right wing noise machine. There is evidence all over the place (exept on Fox, et al., of course), that stimulus money indeed got projects moving, saved states from bankruptcy (which were also suffering from lack of projected revenue due to the economy), and kept many people from the unemployment lines, even if temporarily. More than half of the stimulus money targeted tax breaks for small businesses, yet business leaders continue to shout that "Obama isn't business friendy." Did some states misuse their stimulus funds? Indeed they did. Was there fraud? Isn't there always some crook looking to make a buck at the expense of the taxpayer?

Finally, a sitting president has a Constitutional obligation to work with and through the two legislative branches. He can't just dictate the way his preferred policy will be enacted. So to allege that he "turned over" anything to Pelosi and Reid is another misnomer. He had no choice. It took over a year to get a final bill passed, which would indicate to any "thinking" person that a LOT of compromising was taken into consideration, including, contrary to what you won't hear on FoxNews, over 100 amendments put forth by Republicans.

Seeing as you seem to claim that Fox News mis reports, I would like to point out how you mis-report about Fox News.

Fox News reported on the stimulus projects. The truth about the projects. The money spent and the amount of jobs created. Facts are facts. Many of the projects did not maximize the efficiency of the money in terms of jobs produced. 300K to produce one job is ludicrous and that is why many deem it as a failure. The unemployment rate did not do what Obama promised it would do...and I doubt even YOU fell for the old fall back of "well, think of how bad it could have been without the stimulus". I expected him to say it just as I expected Bush to say "well, at least we got rid of a dictator"...ikt is what politicians do to save face. They spin.

Fox News NEVER said the stimulus did not help states stay afloat. To the contrary, they said that it DID help states stay afloat. And furthermore, giving states money to stay afloat would do just that. Help them stay afloat. It is basic logic. Problem was, the stimulus was not marketed to the people as a means to help states stay afloat. It was marketed as a jobs bill for all intents and purposes. If it was designed to help states stay afloat, there should have been guidelines set in place to ensure those same states made the approprioate moves to become more independant.....

As for Obama handing it over to Pelosi. Many of the times he was asked, he admitted he did not know what was in the bill....he DID pass it off to Prlosi to draft and negotiate. For good or bad, that was what was done..and when you have a super majority, or close to one, the President, who is serving ALL OF THE PEOPLE should ensure it is not a one sided bill.

C'mon, Republicans had a field day either embellishing stuff in the stimulus bill or flat out making up shit. They couldn't wait to get on FoxNews and blather away to Fox's rapt audience of Obama haters.

PolitiFact | Does the stimulus package really include $300,000 for a sculpture garden?

As part of their attack on the Democratic-led $835 billion economic stimulus package, some Republicans have attempted to discredit the plan by singling out examples of what they consider the most outrageous spending.

In an interview with Fox News on Jan. 23, 2009, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, said that in a meeting with President Obama, Cantor asked if he "could use his influence on this process to try and get the pork barrel spending out of the bill. I mean, there's $300,000 for a sculpture garden in Miami."

But do a word search on "sculpture" in the 647-page stimulus bill now before the House and you'll come up blank. It's not in there.

PolitiFact | Cantor says more in stimulus for Washington grass than small businesses

In order to make his equation work, Cantor assumes all of $200 million is for the new turf. It's not.

In reality, only a small portion of the $200 million would be for new turf, Brost said. "It's one of a lot of things that need to get done."

I won't bore you with more, but there are pages and pages of embellishments, lies, and omissions regarding the stimulus bill all promulgated by Republicans, and of course eagerly picked up if not directly, then indirectly via Beck, O'Reilly & Co., parroting what was said.

stimulus bill site:PolitiFact | Sorting out the truth in politics

 

[code1211]

First of all, "saving the UAW" as the only reason for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is a misnomer. However you want to condense it to make it look like political maneuvering only, without the bailouts of the auto companies, millions MORE would have been laid off, looking for work, looking for unemployment compensation (and extensions), and needing to get on the government "welfare" system. So if no auto bailout is what people wanted, they had no clue how much more devastating it would have been NOT to prop up the #1 industry in the United States.

Second, the stimulus package was NOT a "theft." That's another buzzword offered up by the right wing noise machine. There is evidence all over the place (exept on Fox, et al., of course), that stimulus money indeed got projects moving, saved states from bankruptcy (which were also suffering from lack of projected revenue due to the economy), and kept many people from the unemployment lines, even if temporarily. More than half of the stimulus money targeted tax breaks for small businesses, yet business leaders continue to shout that "Obama isn't business friendy." Did some states misuse their stimulus funds? Indeed they did. Was there fraud? Isn't there always some crook looking to make a buck at the expense of the taxpayer?

Finally, a sitting president has a Constitutional obligation to work with and through the two legislative branches. He can't just dictate the way his preferred policy will be enacted. So to allege that he "turned over" anything to Pelosi and Reid is another misnomer. He had no choice. It took over a year to get a final bill passed, which would indicate to any "thinking" person that a LOT of compromising was taken into consideration, including, contrary to what you won't hear on FoxNews, over 100 amendments put forth by Republicans.

An interesting take if only slightly associated with reality.

The bail out was sold on the idea that if the two auto makers were forced into reorganization that faith in their products would be so diminished that they would fold. The bail out was given to avoid the reorganization which occurred anyway.

If the stated purpose was not achieved or even attempted, then the result is what we must examine. The bond holders were screwed and the union was saved.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

The Failed Stimulus Failed. Period. If the Failed Stimulus had succeeded, the expenditure of the funds to save the states would have been unneeded because the tax revenues resulting from the stimulated economy would have funded the operations. Unemployment extensions would not have been needed because those who needed additional unemployment would have been employed.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

"He had no choice." If that doesn't sum it up, nothing does. He had no choice because he chose to have no choice. He's the most powerful man in the world. Many Presidents have been in tough positions. If Lincoln had no choice, we'd have 2 separate countries.

It's not that he had no choice. He simply chose to not make a choice.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

You can spend forever trying to justify failure as inevitable or you can work like hell to find success. There's a whole lot of justification going on with the Big 0.

 

[MaggieMae]

An interesting take if only slightly associated with reality.

The bail out was sold on the idea that if the two auto makers were forced into reorganization that faith in their products would be so diminished that they would fold. The bail out was given to avoid the reorganization which occurred anyway.

If the stated purpose was not achieved or even attempted, then the result is what we must examine. The bond holders were screwed and the union was saved.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

The Failed Stimulus Failed. Period. If the Failed Stimulus had succeeded, the expenditure of the funds to save the states would have been unneeded because the tax revenues resulting from the stimulated economy would have funded the operations. Unemployment extensions would not have been needed because those who needed additional unemployment would have been employed.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

"He had no choice." If that doesn't sum it up, nothing does. He had no choice because he chose to have no choice. He's the most powerful man in the world. Many Presidents have been in tough positions. If Lincoln had no choice, we'd have 2 separate countries.

It's not that he had no choice. He simply chose to not make a choice.

That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

You can spend forever trying to justify failure as inevitable or you can work like hell to find success. There's a whole lot of justification going on with the Big 0.

Whatever...your crystal ball says that everything would have been hunky-dory if "the free market had been allowed to correct itself." But crystal balls don't exist either except in someone's fantasy. Private enterprise HAD NO MONEY. Do you even really know what happened?

 

[code1211]

Whatever...your crystal ball says that everything would have been hunky-dory if "the free market had been allowed to correct itself." But crystal balls don't exist either except in someone's fantasy. Private enterprise HAD NO MONEY. Do you even really know what happened?

I do know what happened. That doesn't matter, though.

At the time the Stimulus was passed I knew and forcast on this board that it would not have the advertised effect. It never had a chance to be stimulative. There was not even one feature of the thing that was designed to stimulate. If nothing had been done at all, it would have been preferable.

Still no positive effects, but atleast we didn't spend almost a Trillion dollars to gain no positive effect.

I think that it was you who advised me that there are some portions of the "Stimulus" funds that will not be spent until 10 years after the supposed need for the Stimulus.

Asking if I knew what happened makes not difference. There are two questions that do matter, though:

1. Did the Big 0 have any idea what might happen?
2. Does the Big 0 have any idea what will happen?

If experience teaches us anything, the answer to both of these questions is "no".

 

[code1211]

Whatever...your crystal ball says that everything would have been hunky-dory if "the free market had been allowed to correct itself." But crystal balls don't exist either except in someone's fantasy. Private enterprise HAD NO MONEY. Do you even really know what happened?

Sorry to respond to you twice, but, do be clear:

Is it your position that:

a. The stimulus was and is a success?
b. That the Big 0 did not hand over his authority and responsibility to correct the economy to Nancy and Harry?
c. That the Big 0 had no choice and what happened was the only possible course of events?

Just wondering...