What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
That doesn’t necessarily mean that he will lose the election, ironsides. Clinton lost a lot of support when Congress failed to pass the health care reform. Democrats lost the Congress; at one point Clinton was down to 40%. But he did not have any trouble winning reelection.
Health care reform will be resolved by the end of the years, one way or the other. Election is more than three years away. By election time, others issues will dominate, not a dead issue like health care reform.
Extrafire, for a guess, I did pretty well. I will be 60 in March; we belong to the same generation (though we hold widely differing views).
Encouraging signs, but there are still some disquieting signs:
Extrafire, when economy recovers, it does not do so overnight, it is a slow, painful process. From all indicators showing negative (Stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence, durable good sales, housing starts etc.), you may see one or two indicators improve. Then you may see more improvement, while other indicators still lag.
You would expect recovery to be in the full swing say, in six months or a year. Different indicators show improvement at different stages, stock market being the first, unemployment unfortunately being the last.
The fact that there are some encouraging sings and some discouraging ones means that recovery may have just started.
Extrafire, when economy recovers, it does not do so overnight, it is a slow, painful process. From all indicators showing negative (Stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence, durable good sales, housing starts etc.), you may see one or two indicators improve. Then you may see more improvement, while other indicators still lag.
You would expect recovery to be in the full swing say, in six months or a year. Different indicators show improvement at different stages, stock market being the first, unemployment unfortunately being the last.
The fact that there are some encouraging sings and some discouraging ones means that recovery may have just started.
The amount of debt in the US is staggering, so huge it cannot be repaid. I'm cautiously optimistic in the short term, but not in the long term.
Extrafire, here I agree with you. That is why I would like to see Obama run for reelection on the promise of reducing (perhaps eliminating) the budget deficit.
In Canada, the time to do so will come very shortly, we are coming out of the meltdown much earlier than Americans. If we do have an election in November, I would like to see what the two main parties say about deficit reduction.
Extrafire, here I agree with you. That is why I would like to see Obama run for reelection on the promise of reducing (perhaps eliminating) the budget deficit.
In Canada, the time to do so will come very shortly, we are coming out of the meltdown much earlier than Americans. If we do have an election in November, I would like to see what the two main parties say about deficit reduction.
You have stated a number of times that the mess was created by Bush. Yet you have never said exactly what he did to create it. So now is the time to correct that oversight.
A number of people have explained how Carter/Clinton were primarily responsible for the mess. Now it's time for you to explain exactly how Bush created the mess.
I await your explanation with bated breath.
You seem to have missed the problems I mentioned, specifically the unrepayable debt. I suggest that there won't be a complete recovery, in fact, we may have to be satisfied with a bottom to the plunge. If things don't get worse we may be able to hang on.
A few more discouraging things I heard on the radio recently:
- Official unemployment in the US is 9.7%, but real unemployment is16%.
- The impending commercial real estate collapse is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 700 billion dollars.
- Housing foreclosures are 4 times housing sales.
He's the guy most responsible for the budget deficit, with unnecessary expenditures on bailouts and subsidies. And his administration regularly admits that their deficit estimates are way below reality. Might not be a good idea to keep him around for another term.
As for Canada, we're fortunate that we have a very stable banking system, but unfortunately our economy is very dependant on the US economy. we may be coming out of recession only to fall back in.
A number of people have explained how Carter/Clinton were primarily responsible for the mess.
Extrafire, you mean you have ‘explained’ how Carter and Clinton were responsible for the mess. And the reason is simple, they were Democrats, so they are responsible. Bush was a Republican, so he cannot possibly be responsible, perish the thought.
But in your zeal to criticize a Democrat, you assign almost godlike powers to Carter. You claim that Reagan (8 years), Bush Sr. (4 years), Bush Jr. (8 years) were powerless to undo what Carter did in four years.
No doubt Carter caused his mess, but he was crafty enough to cause a delayed mess. He was astute enough to forecast that there will be a Republican president 27 years into the future. He cleverly arranged things so that the meltdown remained dormant for 27 years, and after 27 years it magically popped up during Bush’s presidency. 20 years of Republican presidency and 12 years of Republican Congress were powerless to do anything to undo four years of Carter administration.
No doubt you really believe this nonsense. Anyway, by your account, Carter must have been a very powerful, very clever, very crafty president. I already had a high opinion of Carter; your explanation has elevated him even more in my opinion. Anybody in front of whom 20 years of Republican Presidents and 12 years of Republican Congress are powerless, well my hat off to him.
Extrafire, you mean you have ‘explained’ how Carter and Clinton were responsible for the mess. And the reason is simple, they were Democrats, so they are responsible. Bush was a Republican, so he cannot possibly be responsible, perish the thought.
But in your zeal to criticize a Democrat, you assign almost godlike powers to Carter. You claim that Reagan (8 years), Bush Sr. (4 years), Bush Jr. (8 years) were powerless to undo what Carter did in four years.
No doubt Carter caused his mess, but he was crafty enough to cause a delayed mess. He was astute enough to forecast that there will be a Republican president 27 years into the future. He cleverly arranged things so that the meltdown remained dormant for 27 years, and after 27 years it magically popped up during Bush’s presidency. 20 years of Republican presidency and 12 years of Republican Congress were powerless to do anything to undo four years of Carter administration.
No doubt you really believe this nonsense. Anyway, by your account, Carter must have been a very powerful, very clever, very crafty president. I already had a high opinion of Carter; your explanation has elevated him even more in my opinion. Anybody in front of whom 20 years of Republican Presidents and 12 years of Republican Congress are powerless, well my hat off to him.
Is it ever a good idea to elect a Democrat? A Democrat should not be elected and if elected, should be booted out as soon as possible and a Republican elected, so that USA could return to paradise, as it had under Bush.
But keep faith, Extrafire, nothing lasts forever. No doubt some day Republicans will chemo back to power and it will be paradise in USA once again (no doubt you look back longingly to the glory days of Bush, until January 2009).
''keep faith, Extrafire, nothing lasts forever. No doubt some day Republicans will chemo back to power and it will be paradise in USA once again (no doubt you look back longingly to the glory days of Bush, until January 2009).''
Yup. He knows fully well that it was Bush who created the economic mess. If it had been the Democrats who did so, Obama would not have won by nearly 10,000,000 votes in what was the biggest landslide in USA political history.
Yup. He knows fully well that it was Bush who created the economic mess. If it had been the Democrats who did so, Obama would not have won by nearly 10,000,000 votes in what was the biggest landslide in USA political history.
So you're saying that the current mess is due to the acts brought in by Carter and Clinton! Nice of you to admit it.
But you blame Bush because he didn't repeal the bad laws that they enacted. Somehow I don't think you have a very strong case.
So you agree with me that Obama could be very bad for the US economy! Wow! It's a breath of fresh air when you admit to the truth.
Last edited:
There you go, saying that Bush created the mess again. But you still haven't said how.
C'mon now, inquiring minds want to know!
Millions of us await your explanation with bated breath.
I am not saying that, Extrafire, you are saying that. What I am saying is that in your zeal to criticize a Democrat, you are ascribing almost godlike powers to Carter.
If somebody can do something in four years, which 20 years of Republican President and 12 years of republican Congress are powerless to turn around, that person is very powerful indeed. And you are saying that, I am not saying that.
So you agree with me that Obama could be very bad for the US economy! Wow! It's a breath of fresh air when you admit to the truth.
I admitted nothing of the sort, Extrafire, I was just expanding on your point of view. In my opinion, it looks as if Obama has been able to bring the economy back from the abyss (and Bush put us there), I am not sure McCain would have been able to do that.
I admitted nothing of the sort, Extrafire, I was just expanding on your point of view. In my opinion, it looks as if Obama has been able to bring the economy back from the abyss (and Bush put us there), I am not sure McCain would have been able to do that.
It's actually all Ford's fault.
Ford was the one who brought all the RANDites into government - Cheney, Bush Sr, Rumsfeld, etc.
That's where all the trouble started.
Ford was the one who brought all the RANDites into government - Cheney, Bush Sr, Rumsfeld, etc.
That's where all the trouble started.
I personally blame FDR. If he had not come up with a new deal and reduced the unemployment from 25%, the 2007 meltdown would not have occurred. After all, if unemployment is already around 25%, how much worse can it get?
The problem of course, was compounded by Johnson, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton and Obama. And poor Bush had to pay the price.
The problem of course, was compounded by Johnson, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton and Obama. And poor Bush had to pay the price.
You must include every President from Taft thru present day for the problem, no exceptions. They all did their little part.