What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?


SirJosephPorter
#1
This thread was prompted by a discussion I had with a poster (probably a Republican, but I am not sure). It is well known by now that many Republicans want Obama to fail. There is the famous yell by the de facto Republican leader, Rush Limbaugh, ‘I hope he fails’.

I think Republicans have a simplistic idea what is meant by of Obama failing. It goes something like this. As a result of Obama’s policies, we slide into a depression, unemployment 25%, inflation 20%.

As a result of that, Republicans win control of Senate and House in 2010, win the Presidency in 2012. Then unemployment falls to 4%, inflation falls to 2% and every body lives happily ever after.

But let us really look at what happens if Obama fails. Here I am assuming the rosiest scenario for Republicans. So let us say that Obama’s policies are a total failure and by October 2012 unemployment has shot up to 15%, inflation 10%. Of course Republicans win control of Senate and House.

What will be the first action of Republicans? What did they do the last time they controlled the Congress and there was a Democratic President, Clinton? They started impeachment proceedings, of course. And that is what they will do this time as well.

So in 2011 nothing will be done about economy, USA will remain glued to TV sets and internet to follow the impeachment proceedings. There are really no grounds for impeachment, but there are plenty that can be trumped up by Republicans. Some of them are:

Obama is not a US born American citizen and hence, not eligible to be the President.

Treason. He purposely violated the constitution by running for President.

Economic mismanagement. These are not grounds for impeachment, but that won’t stop the Republicans.

Anyway, so most of 2011 will be spent in impeachment. Obama will be impeached in the House on a partisan vote, but Republicans will fail to convict him in the senate (no way they are going to end up with 67 Senators after 2010 elections, no matter how bad the economy).

So the start of 2012 will see Obama and Republican Congress both standing, both bloodied. There will be plenty of bad blood between them and of course, nothing will get done in 2012.

Now let us say the Republican dream comes true, by October 2012, inflation is 20%, unemployment 25%. There is plenty of misery in the nation, people are literally begging for food in the streets. Of course Obama loses the election, Republicans win the Presidency.

Now we are into 2013 and economy is an absolute mess. Then let us say that by end of 2013, Republicans implement their agenda (more tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich, deregulation on a massive scale, more budget deficits, scrapping of all the environmental laws to encourage businesses etc.). Even if they control Presidency and Congress, it takes time to pass a bunch of legislation.

By now the economy has been going down hill for 5 years (it started in 2008 . Even if Republican cure works like a miracle, we are looking at at least three years before we see a significant improvement. That takes us to end of 2016, or beginning of 2017.

So if Obama fails, the earliest economy will recover is 2017, or eight years from now. This assuming everything goes smoothly for Republicans, if it isn't smooth going, it may take ten or more years.

If Obama succeeds, economy will start recovering next year. Democrats will lose a few seats in 2010, but not enough to change the balance of power. Then Obama can get on to the next phase, reducing the deficits.

So one year as opposed to eight or more years. It is only the most partisan of Republicans, somebody who doesn’t care how much misery, how much poverty Americans suffer, how much misery is caused, it is only someone like that who would wish Obama to fail.

Any reasonable person (of whatever persuasion) would hope that Obama would succeed and we will have a recovery next years, and not Obama fails and the economic meltdown continues for eight or more years.
 
darkbeaver
#2
You seem to be convinced that republicans and democrats are not one and the same species. I for one would enjoy reading your paper in support of this. Nothing will or can be done about the bloody economy by Obamas administration. It's dead, capitalism has screwed us again.
 
Extrafire
#3
What colour is the sky in your world, SJP?
 
Francis2004
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

This thread was prompted by a discussion I had with a poster (probably a Republican, but I am not sure). It is well known by now that many Republicans want Obama to fail. There is the famous yell by the de facto Republican leader, Rush Limbaugh, ‘I hope he fails’.

SJP, I think you are "Over the Top" as my daughter would say..

First of all, Democrats would wish the same of Republicans in the same situation in such a polarized world.. That is just reality.. You cannot tell me that the left is not any better at wanting justice when not in power and wishing the same faith as you mention above. Perhaps it is not as vocal but it is as darn well wanting..
 
Francis2004
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

You seem to be convinced that republicans and democrats are not one and the same species. I for one would enjoy reading your paper in support of this. Nothing will or can be done about the bloody economy by Obamas administration. It's dead, capitalism has screwed us again.

Sorry DB but show me one system that has worked any better ? Capitalism is by far not perfect but has to date withstood the test of time and until such time as a new system can replace it, it is all we have.
 
L Gilbert
#6
J K Galbraith said, "Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's the reverse." There's the rich, and then there's the peons. It won't ever change.
 
YukonJack
#7
There was a period, perhaps no more than two weeks after September 11, 2001, when the Democrats did not want Bush to fail in every respect in the entire eight years of Bush's Presidency. They wanted their country to lose in Afganistan. They wanted their country to lose in Iraq. (they stiil do, just to be able to gloat over how wrong Bush was). They were hoping for a record unemployment. They wanted the economy to tank by forcing banks and Freddie Mac and Fannie May giving loans - subprime - to born losers. They never stopped - ably supported by their ally, the left-wing (sorry, redundancy!) MSM - to ridicule everything GW Bush had ever said or done. There has NEVER BEEN any "loyal" opposition in the world that has ever been more disloyal than the American Democrats 2000-2008. There has never been any opposition that was hoping for a President to fail, as much as the treasoneous Democrats 2000-2008.

Being Democrats, however - dishonest and cowardly by definition - they never had the guts to say it outright, like Rush Limbaugh.

They never forgave and/or forget that their incompetant candidate was not able to carry his own state or the state of the President under whom he served as VP. They never forgot or forgave the fact that their other equally incompetant candidate was trounced by Bush in 2004.

And as far as carrying a grudge - as SirJosephPorter visualizes a possible Republican control of House and Senate - just look at all the efforts of Obama administration lackeys, way-past-their-best-before-date Congressmen and Senators (once again ably supported by the left-wing MSM) to convict Bush and Cheney for keeping America safe from terrorists. In the almost bankrupt New York Times (no wonder, for promulgating Left-wing lies), Boston Globe etc., and on MSNBC (available on TV for all those who are not too cheap to subscribe) and to a somewhat lesser degree, CNN, that is the everlasting topic.

The post and hypothesis by SirJosephPorter is at best a pathetic joke. If his chrystal ball is so reliable, how about predicting the numbers on the next draw of 649?
Last edited by YukonJack; May 8th, 2009 at 08:30 AM..
 
captain morgan
#8
Obama's failing is that during the campaign (and primaries), he promised the sun, moon and stars... His problem is that he got elected.

It wasn't any secret that the US economy was in ruins, yet he based his platform on buying votes. To his credit, he is attempting to live up to a few of his promises, but the long-term cost will cripple the Americans for a couple of generations.

that said, do the Republicans hope that Obama fails? The answer is no.. They don't need to hope.
 
YukonJack
#9
The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats always wanted Bush to fail. In EVERY RESPECT, regardless what's best for their country.

The Republicans only want NOT President Obama, but Obama's POLICIES to fail.

Unless you are a free-loading unionist, you should agree.
Unless you are independantly wealthy, you should agree.
Unless you treasure you freedom of speech, you should agree.
Unless you treasure your right for free press, you should agree.

If you take Cuba as a shining example of best education and health care systems, Obama is your man.

If you want to toss away your national pride and bow to a homophobe misogamist sand-Nazi king, Obama is your man.

If you want to be friends with a mass murderer (or two, or three) Obama is your man.

If you agree that racking up a debt larger than ALL the Presidents from Washington to GWB, combined is perfectly OK, Obama is your MAN.

If you believe in hypocrisy that slashing one fifth of one percent of the newly created debt is the best example of frugality, Obama is your man.

If you think that it is a glorious mission to go around the world on an "America Sucks" apology tour, Obama is your man.
 
SirJosephPorter
#10
SJP, I think you are "Over the Top" as my daughter would say

I don’t think so, Frances (incidentally, why did you drop ‘Sir’ from your name?). I think the scenario I have laid out is a very reasonable one, assuming Obama fails (and Republicans get their wish). If Obama fails, we are realistically looking at around ten years of misery. If Obama succeeds, we may be looking at one or two years.

Now, whether he will succeed or not, we don’t know. The jury is sill out, we will know in a year or two (though most ecumenists agree that there are hopeful early sings). But I come back to my point, it is only the most partisan Republican, somebody who doesn’t care what hanapers to his country, that would wish Obama to fail, just so his party can get into power again.

In my opinion, Republicans should try to come up with new ideas. They should try to expand their base from old, white, bitter men to women, blacks, youth, Hispanics etc. That is a much better way to win elections than hope for ten years of misery.
 
SirJosephPorter
#11
The Republicans only want NOT President Obama, but Obama's POLICIES to fail.

I agree, Yukon Jack. Republicans want Obama’s policies to fail. That failure means another depression, 25% unemployment and 20% inflation. Republicans wish that on American people, just so they can come to power again. Pathetic.
 
SirJosephPorter
#12
Obama's failing is that during the campaign (and primaries), he promised the sun, moon and stars... His problem is that he got elected.

Captain, doesn’t every politician do that? He does whatever is needed to be elected. McCain had made equally big promises. He promised to fix the economy, get the country back on the right track again, get rid of the credit crunch etc. In addition, he also promised to balance the budget in four years, by the end of his term (though I doubt that anybody believed him).

That is what very politician does, it is nothing new. But opinion polls indicate that people realize that Obama inherited a very difficult situation, they are willing to cut him plenty of slack. They are willing to wait for a year or two to see how things work out. All the same, if his policies are a total failure, if unemployment is 15% and inflation 10% next October, Republicans will easily win back control of the House and the Senate.
 
captain morgan
#13
McCain doesn't have to live up to those promises... And yes, you are correct in stating that all politicians do it. Obama is certainly no different, however, where one difference does lie is in the degree and depth of the promises.

Obama's failing will be in the need for gvt financing in certain sectors in addition to buying the vote... Consider Chretien, as is expected of liberal gvts, he too bought the vote during tough times, however, the scope of his purchase was proportionately much smaller (he realized that there was economic turmoil) AND Chretien renegged on most of his promises thus not having to actually pay for them.

Unless Obama's hail-mary pass works, all the opinion polls in the world won't get him re-elected.. He'll be the martyr just like Kim Campbell was fro the Cons.
 
Colpy
#14
The most idiotic lead post I have ever seen.

First of all, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth jerk. Most American Republicans do NOT want Obama to fail.....they want what is best for the nation.

Secondly, Slick Willy was put on the impeachment wagon because he LIED under oath......that is perjury, and he should have fried for it, and I couldn't care less who was sucking what.

So all Obama has to do is avoid committing felonies, and he won't have to face impeachment procedings.

Which makes the rest of SJP's post simply ludicrous. No surprize there.

He has outdone himself, and validated my opinion of him.
 
YukonJack
#15
"In my opinion, Republicans should try to come up with new ideas. They should try to expand their base from old, white, bitter men to women, blacks, youth, Hispanics etc. That is a much better way to win elections than hope for ten years of misery."

SirJosephPorter, the Republicans already have extended a hand to more minorities than the Democrats ever did.

Shall we start with Lincoln? It is a safe bet that most of Americans, taught by unionist free-loading teachers will say that Lincoln was a Democrat. It figures.

Shall we continue with the fact that the first black Secretary of State was a Republican? Or the first black AND female Security Advisor was a Republican? Shall we continue that the first black President of a National Party is a Republican? Shall we go on and remind you and others like you that the first Hispanic Attorney General was a Republican?

I know, there is no point in that. To you and your ilk, all black, Hispanics, gays, Lesbians, handicapped who are Republicans are nothing but sell-outs, house-******s and worse. Just look at your own posts on these forums denigrating any and all African-Americans who have the temerity to refuse to tow the slavish Democrat party line.

Democrats/liberals can only resort to personal insults and character assassinations. Just look at what they have been doing to Sarah Palin AND all members of her family. Or Miss California for expressing an honest opinion. Or Joe the Plummer for asking the Anointed One a simple question that the dolt could not answer with any kind of coherence and without a teleprompter. Look what theey are doing to Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter just because they these ladies have more brains and courage than their detractors, but mostly because they oppose infanticide, known as abortion.

You have the nerve to call Republican "bitter'? How about the bitterest jerk Perez Hilton? Or that hate-monger Musto? Or Michael Moore? Or the entire New York Post?
 
YukonJack
#16
"I agree, Yukon Jack. Republicans want Obamaís policies to fail. That failure means another depression, 25% unemployment and 20% inflation. Republicans wish that on American people, just so they can come to power again. Pathetic."

Grasping at staws, SirJosephPorter????

Define any period under a Republican President in recent years when there was 25% unemployment and/or 20% inflation rate.

That honour belongs to your favourite Noble Piss Prize Winner, the peanut-brain DEMOCRAT Jimminy Cricket Carter. Dumb as a sack of hammers he carries with him to Habitat for Humanity sites for vain photo opportunities.
Last edited by YukonJack; May 8th, 2009 at 09:28 AM..
 
YukonJack
#17
Colpy, I agree with everything in your post #14, except for this:

"First of all, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth jerk."

Correct me if I am wrong, but based on your location (as displayed under your avatar) it is unlikely that you EVER listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Which makes your opinion of him about as valid as ANYTHING Mr. Know-It-All, aka SirJosephPorter says.
 
darkbeaver
#18
The Republican versus Democrat opposition has all the benchmarks of pro-sports, it is and it only is a spectator sport for the edification of the wealthy and the pacification of the rest. It's a game for dummies brought to us by our masters. If you play you lose.
 
captain morgan
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The most idiotic lead post I have ever seen.

First of all, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth jerk. Most American Republicans do NOT want Obama to fail.....they want what is best for the nation.

Secondly, Slick Willy was put on the impeachment wagon because he LIED under oath......that is perjury, and he should have fried for it, and I couldn't care less who was sucking what.

So all Obama has to do is avoid committing felonies, and he won't have to face impeachment procedings.

Which makes the rest of SJP's post simply ludicrous. No surprize there.

He has outdone himself, and validated my opinion of him.



Can you even begin to imagine the nature of the lead post had Ruby Dhalla been a Conservative?

Personally, I can how partisan politics gets its footings, however, the nature of the original post is so extreme that it no longer can be described as 'partisan'.
 
SirJosephPorter
#20
Unless Obama's hail-mary pass works, all the opinion polls in the world won't get him re-elected.. He'll be the martyr just like Kim Campbell was fro the Cons.

Caption, you say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is a great thing, it shows courage on the part of Obama which is rare in a politician.

Obama was elected when the economy was in the meltdown phase, thanks to Bush and Republicans. Obama was elected with a very specific platform. When he got elected, he didnít relax, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work in putting his plan into implementation.

If his plan succeeds, people will reward him and Democrats, if his plan fails, people will punish him. That is as it should be.

As far as I am concerned, Obama already gets full marks for courage. It remains to be seen how successful his plan is.
 
SirJosephPorter
#21
SirJosephPorter, the Republicans already have extended a hand to more minorities than the Democrats ever did.

Yukon Jack, they havenít extended a hand, they have raised a finger.

Shall we start with Lincoln? It is a safe bet that most of Americans, taught by unionist free-loading teachers will say that Lincoln was a Democrat. It figures.

Lincoln was a Republican, so what is your point? In the old days, Republican Party was the progressive, liberal, tolerant party. Democratic Party was dominated by Southern Democrats. All that changed with Nixonís Southern Strategy. Nixon decided to make an all out effort to court the white Southern Democrats and in the process moved the party way to the right. These days Republican party is known as the party of old, white, bitter men and is known for its intolerance, prejudice, bigotry etc. (towards blacks, gays, women and other minorities).

You are right, many Americans will probably say that Lincoln was a Democrat. But that says more about how far Republican Party has fallen, how much intolerant, extreme it has become in the past several decades, rather than saying anything about how dumb the people are.

Shall we continue with the fact that the first black Secretary of State was a Republican? Or the first black AND female Security Advisor was a Republican? Shall we continue that the first black President of a National Party is a Republican? Shall we go on and remind you and others like you that the first Hispanic Attorney General was a Republican?

And what has that got to do with anything? Republican policies invariably hurt blacks, Hispanics, gays and other minorities. Blacks typically vote 85 to 90 % Democratic, I donít have statistics for Hispanics, but I think they vote Democratic by at least 2 to 1. It has a lot to do with Republican policies.

You have the nerve to call Republican "bitter'? How about the bitterest jerk Perez Hilton? Or that hate-monger Musto? Or Michael Moore? Or the entire New York Post?

I think New York Post is a conservative newspaper, Yukon. New York Times is liberal.
 
SirJosephPorter
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The Republican versus Democrat opposition has all the benchmarks of pro-sports, it is and it only is a spectator sport for the edification of the wealthy and the pacification of the rest. It's a game for dummies brought to us by our masters. If you play you lose.

You may have something there, darkbeaver. It makes for a great discussion, though.
 
TenPenny
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

This thread was prompted by a discussion I had with a poster (probably a Republican, but I am not sure). It is well known by now that many Republicans want Obama to fail. There is the famous yell by the de facto Republican leader, Rush Limbaugh, ĎI hope he failsí.

Fails at what? What part of the job of President are you talking about?
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Fails at what? What part of the job of President are you talking about?


By Ďfailsí, I mean that his policies do not produce the desired results. It is generally hoped that the economic stimulus package and other changes he has implemented will stop the economic meltdown, reverse the trend and we will get at least indications of an economic recovery by next year.

If his policies fail, that mean there will be no recovery, we will slide into a depression comparable to the Great Depression, unemployment will soar to 25% and inflation will soar to 20% (because of the large amount of money he has pumped into the system).

And when Limbaugh and other Republicans hope that Obama fails, that is precisely what they mean. As Yukon Jack said, they hope that Obamaís policies fail, and we have 25% unemployment and 20% inflation, so that they can get elected again.
 
L Gilbert
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats always wanted Bush to fail. In EVERY RESPECT, regardless what's best for their country.

Yep. And now that there's a Dem in office, the Reps want nothing but him to fail in every aspect. As I said, nothing changes.
 
L Gilbert
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Colpy, I agree with everything in your post #14, except for this:

"First of all, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth jerk."

Correct me if I am wrong, but based on your location (as displayed under your avatar) it is unlikely that you EVER listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Which makes your opinion of him about as valid as ANYTHING Mr. Know-It-All, aka SirJosephPorter says.

Same with your opinion. Rush Limbaugh has been on tv all across Canada. I've watched him a couple times over here in BC. And I will go one step farther than Colpy: the guy is a fat, lazy, loud-mouthed shnook. It's how he makes his money.
 
captain morgan
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Unless Obama's hail-mary pass works, all the opinion polls in the world won't get him re-elected.. He'll be the martyr just like Kim Campbell was fro the Cons.

Caption, you say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is a great thing, it shows courage on the part of Obama which is rare in a politician.


His courage is commendable, however, if his initiatives are not successful, Obama's mistake will be paid by the sweat of generations to come. He is taking one helluva risk with the security and the welfare of American citizens that are not even born yet.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Obama was elected when the economy was in the meltdown phase, thanks to Bush and Republicans. Obama was elected with a very specific platform. When he got elected, he didnít relax, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work in putting his plan into implementation.


His platform is to spend his way out of the immediate economic crisis and plunge the USA into a much more difficult position for future gvts to deal with... On that note, Obama knew the condition of the economy when he threw his hat into the ring to be president. Only a fool would pretend that they had no idea relative to the scope and breadth of the situation.

BTW - You can't thank Carter and 'Opps, did I leave a stain on your blouse' Clinton. The former pushed for his dream for everyone to own a home regardless of capacity and the later opened-up the regulations in banking to make the dream happen.... Some dream, eh?

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

If his plan succeeds, people will reward him and Democrats, if his plan fails, people will punish him. That is as it should be.


On that, we can fully agree.
 
SirJosephPorter
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Same with your opinion. Rush Limbaugh has been on tv all across Canada. I've watched him a couple times over here in BC. And I will go one step farther than Colpy: the guy is a fat, lazy, loud-mouthed shnook. It's how he makes his money.

Gilbert you left out 'drug addict'. He has a conviction for drug possession.
 
lone wolf
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Gilbert you left out 'drug addict'. He has a conviction for drug possession.

That's an unfounded allegation - aka slander. Simply being in possession doesn't make one an addict.
 
L Gilbert
#30
lol Worse than being an addict is being a pusher or a mule.
 

Similar Threads

180
Consequences of corrupting the mosque
by eanassir | Apr 5th, 2010
0
What are the consequences of materialism?
by sanctus | Jan 27th, 2007
16
Consequences of Iraq invasion.
by Ocean Breeze | Aug 6th, 2005
no new posts