Obama May Hold 'Kenyan, Anti-Colonial' Worldview

[Berzerker]

his momma's name is Stan?

 

[Miles Teg]

his momma's name is Stan?

Grandpa Dunham wanted a boy. Matter of public record.

 

[storical]

Debt =/= deficit. There is $13trillion because Republican policies ran up 90% of that. And most of the deficit that Obama signed is caused by Republican policies as well. They are the ones that ran the economy over a cliff, after all.



Who ruined the economy again?



Not with a Congress as conservative as this one, in any case. And since the Congress is headed more conservative, rather than less, then there's no hope of fixing problems.

Let me tell you something, with all the useless spending Obama is doing, he is making the Republicans look like, they know very little about spending money! That to me is quite amazing, he is like a modern day Marie Antoinette. The only problem is she at least spent the money on herself, what our president's excuse? Some democrat he is, iy yi yi!

 

[cubsfan6506]

Your actually dumb, if you compare Barack Obama to Marie Antoinette.

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[choxorn]

Let me tell you something, with all the useless spending Obama is doing, he is making the Republicans look like, they know very little about spending money! That to me is quite amazing, he is like a modern day Marie Antoinette. The only problem is she at least spent the money on herself, what our president's excuse? Some democrat he is, iy yi yi!

These sentences don't even make sense, let alone come close to being a coherent argument. Organize your thoughts better if you want us to take them seriously.

 

[Cutlass]

Let me tell you something, with all the useless spending Obama is doing, he is making the Republicans look like, they know very little about spending money! That to me is quite amazing, he is like a modern day Marie Antoinette. The only problem is she at least spent the money on herself, what our president's excuse? Some democrat he is, iy yi yi!

That makes not the least little bit of sense. First, a sizable part of Obama's deficit is the structural deficit he inherited from Bush. The second part of it is the economy he inherited from Bush.*

The third part is various stimulus spending, which is one off events, and not the ongoing deficit. And was considered necessary by virtually everyone at the time. While some argue that it might not have been necessary, it would have been insane at the time to not have done it.

And the forth, and the only part that Obama really deserves much blame for, is the health care overhaul. And, recall, it was the Republicans that fought for public support to strip out any provision of the bill that was designed to reduce costs.

So yes, compared to any Republican, Obama is a fiscal conservative. And the deficits remain primarily the Republican's fault.

So this argument started with the idea that conservatives do not know Obama. And you have proven that to be true by trying to blame Obama for the actions of conservatives.


* A recession causes both a decrease in tax revenue and an increase in entitlement spending. These things are automatic, and have nothing to do with the group in power's actions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That makes not the least little bit of sense. First, a sizable part of Obama's deficit is the structural deficit he inherited from Bush. The second part of it is the economy he inherited from Bush.*

I'll give you the first part, the minute he's sworn in office, its not his fault right away. That the economy hasn't been improving though is his fault.

The third part is various stimulus spending, which is one off events, and not the ongoing deficit. And was considered necessary by virtually everyone at the time. While some argue that it might not have been necessary, it would have been insane at the time to not have done it.

I actually recall putting down the programs and calling them "Stupid" at the time simply because I thought they made no sense. Virtually everyone I knew agreed it was senseless.

I'm not arguing the GOP are fiscal conservatives though. Just more than the Dems.

And the forth, and the only part that Obama really deserves much blame for, is the health care overhaul. And, recall, it was the Republicans that fought for public support to strip out any provision of the bill that was designed to reduce costs.

Umm.. No, the Republicans fought to kill the bill entirely. Only by cheating the filibuster did the Democrats make them fail.

So yes, compared to any Republican, Obama is a fiscal conservative. And the deficits remain primarily the Republican's fault.

Ron Paul? He wants to literally reduce the tax to a flat 10% or some such, as well as remove almost every federal program. I think that's more "Conservative" then Obama.

So this argument started with the idea that conservatives do not know Obama. And you have proven that to be true by trying to blame Obama for the actions of conservatives.

Umm.... In 2008, NOBODY knew Obama as he literally came from nowhere and objectively was not a good choice for the job. Once he won of course, everyone knew who he was but he still kept his agenda veiled under the codeword "Change." Now, everybody knows Obama, and that's why he's unpopular whereas in '08 he was popular (Which was really only because George W was unpopular)

* A recession causes both a decrease in tax revenue and an increase in entitlement spending. These things are automatic, and have nothing to do with the group in power's actions.

To a point, but a good group in power can hasten the recession and or stop it or make it less painful.

 

[BSmith1068]

I'll give you the first part, the minute he's sworn in office, its not his fault right away. That the economy hasn't been improving though is his fault.

I'm not arguing the GOP are fiscal conservatives though. Just more than the Dems.

Careful there with your “more than Dems” comment. Modern History (Post WW2) begs to differ:

Umm.... In 2008, NOBODY knew Obama as he literally came from nowhere and objectively was not a good choice for the job. Once he won of course, everyone knew who he was but he still kept his agenda veiled under the codeword "Change." Now, everybody knows Obama, and that's why he's unpopular whereas in '08 he was popular (Which was really only because George W was unpopular)

The US Senate is nowhere?

 

[illram]

In this day and age of society-wide short term memory loss and pitiful attention spans (thank you television) does anyone think it's a viable political strategy for a lame duck president to time tanking the economy upon their leaving office? E.g. if you're already unpopular and there is a good chance the opposing party will win the election, put the country in a nosedive so that the next President has to ride out a crappy economy and it's easy to blame him or her for it?

I'm going to call Karl Rove and explain this new tactic to him.

 

[BSmith1068]

Oh, and one more on the economy. While the last few quarters have not been so hot, the overall trend line from when Obama took office is quite positive.

So the economy has indeed improved since he took office.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It looks like job growth started under Bush. Maybe it means we were just slowly coming out of the recession?

Careful there with your “more than Dems” comment. Modern History (Post WW2) begs to differ:

Yet the Dems continue to increase the debt.

The US Senate is nowhere?

Well, he'd just JOINED the senate, few people outside Illinois knew who he was. Granted, some did. You always can find out who all the senators are, and I'm sure there are people who know the names of each and every one (I don't though and most others don't. Most people didn't know Obama before the presidency.)

Oh, and one more on the economy. While the last few quarters have not been so hot, the overall trend line from when Obama took office is quite positive.

So the economy has indeed improved since he took office.

Yep. Because we're climbing out of the recession. Already were, DESPITE Obama, not because of him.

 

[Traitorfish]

I had a bit of a stupid moment there- "Jeez, what's with that spike under Truman? Somebody really dropped the ball th- oh, crap, right, the war."

 

[warpus]

It looks like job growth started under Bush. Maybe it means we were just slowly coming out of the recession?

What sort of opposite definition of "growth" are you using here?

 

[BSmith1068]

It looks like job growth started under Bush. Maybe it means we were just slowly coming out of the recession?

WTH are you talking about? Job growth declined at ever increasing rates right up until January 2009. Starting in February 2009 this decline started to reverse itself and continued on a solid positive trend. Need I remind you that Obama took office on January 20, 2009?

Yet the Dems continue to increase the debt.

One Dem has: Obama, because as you can see from the graph it was rapidly increasing just as he came into office, and you know, we were facing the next Great Depression.

Of the 6 post war Republican presidents, 3 had large increases in the national debt during their tenure as president.

Of the 5 post war Democratic presidents, only 1 has so far (Obama) but again that is because of, you know, avoiding the next Great Depression.

So to say that the Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats is an outright falsehood.

I'll give you the first part, the minute he's sworn in office, its not his fault right away. That the economy hasn't been improving though is his fault.

Yep. Because we're climbing out of the recession. Already were, DESPITE Obama, not because of him.

I’m having problems reconciling these two statements. Which is it? Is Obama responsible for the economy or not?

And just like the jobs data, you’ll notice that it isn’t until AFTER January 2009 that the rate of growth increases. There was no climbing out of the recession starting before Bush left office.

 

[Cutlass]

In this day and age of society-wide short term memory loss and pitiful attention spans (thank you television) does anyone think it's a viable political strategy for a lame duck president to time tanking the economy upon their leaving office? E.g. if you're already unpopular and there is a good chance the opposing party will win the election, put the country in a nosedive so that the next President has to ride out a crappy economy and it's easy to blame him or her for it?

I'm going to call Karl Rove and explain this new tactic to him.

You can't really time it like that though. The housing bubble was decades in the making. The Fed was screwing up under Greenspan for 4 presidents. The financial deregulation started under Reagan, got a big boost when Clinton signed a piece of crap Republican bill, and was finished off when Bush simply refused to enforce existing laws.

Normal recessions come and go. And are rarely a problem for even a full year. This is something different. And while Bush deserves a lot of the blame, the reality is that many people made mistakes going all the way back to Reagan.

As for the Republicans being the more fiscally conservative, clearly anyone who believes that does not know what a fiscal conservative is. Because no current Republican is even remotely close to being a fiscal conservative. I'm more fiscally conservative than any Republican these days.

A fiscal conservative does not spend any money they don't absolutely have to, and not even all that they do have to. But a fiscal conservative would never tolerate deficits that weren't absolutely forced on them. A real fiscal conservative would cut spending as far as they could, then raise taxes. The Republicans raise spending as far as they can, and then cut taxes. The exact opposite of fiscal conservatism.

 

[stuge]

What sort of opposite definition of "growth" are you using here?

Shh, graphs are hard you know.

 

[Ajidica]

Yet the Dems continue to increase the debt.

I advise you, take a look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
(It is under Gross Federal Debt. The only Republican presidents to decrese the debt was Eisenhower and Ford.
All of the democratic presidents lowered it it.)

 

[storical]

These sentences don't even make sense, let alone come close to being a coherent argument. Organize your thoughts better if you want us to take them seriously.

Who is us? How many are you? If I said the same thing about Bush you would be my best friend!

Numbers don't lie, so I remain skeptical. Obama is spending money twice as fast as Bush, so what are your reasons for that? Why are there no jobs? Why is there so high a majority of people against Obama and his policies? I could go on and on. There has never been a real good answer for any of this. To the dems, whatever he does is right, and that is that. The world does not work that way. People are becoming more and more skeptical, thats why they are going to be electing more conservatives this year. What I am wondering, is spending alot of money good for the econBut I don't think either side will be able to fix this country. The one thing we need is a great leader, and we have not had one in some time. I hope these arguements are coherent enough for you to consider.

Take a look at this, I am curious as to how this all plays out. Will I be eating my words or won't I? The next few months will shed some light on this

ECONOMIC SCENE: Did Obama's stimulus plan work?

By David R. Francis, Staff Writer / October 6, 2009

With economic statistics suggesting the recession has ended, a new debate is heating up over the role of the big US stimulus package. Did it help speed the economic revival or not? The conclusions are flying fast – and they’re contradictory.

It “had a substantial positive impact on the growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) and on employment in the second and third quarters,” President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) concluded in a Sept. 10 report.

“It didn’t [work],” says Brian Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

All of this is a bit premature, of course. It takes time for $787 billion to wend its way through the economy – and even more time to track it.

Four-fifths of the stimulus money hasn’t been spent yet. The CEA concedes its 42-page report draws from a wide variety of estimates – estimates that concur, by and large – but not hard numbers: “It must ... be regarded as preliminary and understood to be subject to considerable uncertainty.”

Still, you can’t pump $151 billion into the economy and not see something.

For instance, the bill gave fiscal relief to the states, most facing large budget shortfalls. It thereby averted in some degree layoffs of state and municipal workers.

The White House agency holds that these outlays played “a key role” in changing the economic trajectory. It suggests that the stimulus effort added “roughly 2.3 percentage points to real GDP growth in the second quarter and is likely to add even more to growth in the third quarter.” The stimulus probably added between 600,000 and 1.1 million jobs (relative to what would have happened without stimulus) as of the third quarter.

All of this is a shell game, counters Mr. Riedl. The rescue money comes from taxpayers or other parts of the economy and thus has no positive impact on the economy, he maintains. “It’s totally zero-sum.”

One factor that will ultimately determine the effect of the stimulus is what economists call “the multiplier effect.” If taxpayer money pays someone to build a bridge, the builders spend a share of that money on, say, clothes or a flat-screen TV. This gives the clothing and electronics retailers more money to spend as they see fit. And so on.

If the stimulus works well, the money will turn over several times. If it doesn’t, the government funds will have little oomph.

The stimulus was poorly designed and not very large in relation to GDP, argues Harvard University economist Benjamin Friedman. Thus, the impact on the economy “should be modest.”

Yet the package stands as the largest stimulus effort in US history, at 2 percent of 2009 GDP. Moreover, it is larger than most of the 20 national stimulus packages passed this year, such as Britain’s (1.5 percent of GDP), Canada’s (1.7 percent), and Italy’s (0.1 percent). The US effort is topped by only a few, including South Korea’s (3 percent), Russia’s (2.9 percent), China’s (2.6 percent), and Japan’s (2.4 percent).

In the US, 75 percent of the package is supposed to be deployed in the first 18 months – that is, before the end of 2010. So the next few months could be telling.

“It’s very early to make a final or quasi-final judgment” on whether the package provided a good boost to the economy, says Anne Vorce, an economist at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan Washington group pushing for taming the budget deficit. Nonetheless, she figures the cost of stimulus action was lower than the cost of inaction would have been.

 

[Ajidica]

Link. That article lacks one.
Timliness, that article lacks.

October 6, 2009

It is almost a year old.

To the dems, whatever he does is right, and that is that.

Not true. I feel he didn't go far enough with health care reform.

 

[storical]

Link. That article lacks one.
Timliness, that article lacks.

It is almost a year old.

Not true. I feel he didn't go far enough with health care reform.

He could'nt because of righteous politics. The reason I say he should have left it alone, it was not the right time, not in the middle of a recession. But the next president will straighten that out again. This has been a serious debate, but they have to do it the right way. This is why we need a great leader. It's something this country has been lacking for some time.

The article is older, but the point is the Obama's stimulus plan has not played out fully. Obama has a first class education from Harvard. I am know he is not stupid, but education does not make a great leader. You have it or you don't. By the end of this year we will know either way, if his plan has worked.

BTW Ajidica, I have not heard yet a dem supporting Obama, say he was wrong about anything. At least on these forums. They surely cannot be right about everything, even a proven theory is not 100% accurate. Everything in this world has a skeptism about it, a measure of doubt. I could ask you for instance, do you fold or wad your toilet paper when you wipe? There is a chance you wad it, and a chance you fold it. There are also unseen possibilities, maybe you don't use any. Either way there is doubt. It is the same with politicians, do they do things right, or do they do things wrong, or do they just guess? How do we really know, there is always speculation. It's proven on this thread page, with all the graphs, enough to fill up an encyclopedia, and what did it lead to? LOL, more speculation.