Come on Y.J. you'd be the first to call us rude if we didn't reply to your "pearls"
What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Come on Y.J. you'd be the first to call us rude if we didn't reply to your "pearls"
Yukon, are you implying that JLM and Cliffy are wise? That is what you seem to imply, you seem to be saying that they are wise but don’t keep their mouths shut.
Perhaps, Francis (and I certainly hope that you are right). But it may have come at too great a cost.
The real hard, gut wrenching work is going to come after the recovery is in full bloom. It is easy to spend money; it is much more difficult to cut spending. Once recovery is in full speed, Obama and the Democrats must cut spending and cut it mercilessly (Same here in Canada). They must also raise taxes.
Republicans, which pay mealy mouthed lip service to cutting spending, will be all over Democrats, criticizing Democrats for cutting spending. Indeed, once the recovery is in full swing, I would like to see the role of the two parties reversed, Democrats favoring spending cuts, Republicans advocating more spending.
But four years form now in Obama’s second term (assuming he gets one), Democrats must be ruthless and merciless in cutting spending; the deficit monster must be slain at all cost. It may cost Democrats control of the Senate and the House (people generally don’t like it when governments cut spending). But that is not too big a price to pay to balance the budget.
A judicious combination of spending cuts and tax increases is the only way to balance the budget.
Bail-outs/stimulus..it's all B.S..Big business/government/Big leaders/politicians. All the same thing in the end..Mo matter how you look at things...All ways to control the Slave drones while takin their money...Same ol Same oil ..no difference..at least Obama is a little more accessible to the people..
You have to give him some credit Sir Joe, he knows we're wise and probably realizes we generally keep our mouths shut EXCEPT to clear away some of his verbal debris.
Democrats have done it once, with Clinton, pgs. When Clinton came to office, his first priority was to fix the economic mess left by Bush and also to balance the budget.
So in is first budget he proposed a tax increase. Republicans were ecstatic about it; they got a ready made hammer to beat Clinton over the head with. However, Democratic Congress passed the tax increases. That was a big factor in democrats losing the control of the House and the Senate in 1994.
However, the tax increases contributed mightily in balancing he budget. The increased revenues as a result of the tax increase were instrumental in balancing the budget and running a surplus.
It was definitely worth losing the control of the House and the senate in order to fix the economy, Democrats showed courage uncommon for politicians.
I would like to see similar kind of courage once the economy is fixed. In Obama’s second term (assuming he gets one), Democrats should cut spending and increase taxes. If they do that, they probably will lose control of Senate and House in 2014 (they probably lose it anyway, second midterm elections are usually disastrous for the governing party). But it will be worth it to lose control of the Congress, if they lose it as a result of passing responsible legislation to reduce the budget deficit.
Here is what you said in your own words when I questioned your claim that the Republicans had elected him leader:
Notice that the word "de facto" is conspicuous by its absence.
I described Bush as incompetant, never blameless. Just more of your invention.
I told you to work back from 116. Apparently you didn't even get back that far.
OK, I'm going to put this in a way that even you can understand. I said the consequence of the successful implementation of O's policies will be a devastated economy. I said that the damage could last for decades. I didn't say it would cause a depression. I did say that we may already be in a depression and that O's actions would likely prolong it for years.
But you know all that. You're just inventing "straw men" because you don't think you can refute what I actually said.
Wishful thinking. There's still major industries in the process of collapse. Think GM. Bailouts may slow the process but they will not prevent it. That will mean millions more permanently losing their jobs. More forclosures and bankrupcies as a result. I wish you were right about that, but I can't see how you could be.
" It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain, I believe.
SJP, take note.
Quote:
The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press. - SJP
Notice that the word "de facto" is conspicuous by its absence. - Extrafire
Extrafire, also notice that I said that ‘Republican base’ elected him the leader. It is common knowledge that Republican base does not have official elections for the Party leader, the base do not elect the Republican Party leader in an election. So it is implied that base elected him the de facto leader.
It is similar to saying that environmentalist movement elected Gore as their leader. Since environmentalists do not elect a leader in an election, it means that they elected Gore the de facto leader.
OK, I'm going to put this in a way that even you can understand. I said the consequence of the successful implementation of O's policies will be a devastated economy.
Now, this is where I have a problem, Extrafire (and this is where we differ). A policy is a success if it achieves the desired, the stated aim, if it fixes what it was intended to fix, if it fixes what it says it is going to fix.
Obama has said that if his polices are successful, it will revitalize the economy, and put the country on the road to recovery. If his polices fail, it means that economic pain will continue.
This is the marker laid down by Obama for the success or failure of his policies. Who gave you the right to invert it, say that right is left and left is right? Obama says that successful implementation of his polices will result in revitalized economy, failure will result in devastated economy. I take him at his word. You don’t’ have any authority to invert the definition of success and failure unilaterally.
I said that the damage could last for decades. I didn't say it would cause a depression. I did say that we may already be in a depression and that O's actions would likely prolong it for years.
Again, if the polices are successful, economy will recover. Whether it does any lasting damage will depend upon how the party in power after the recovery (Democrats or Republicans) deals with the national deficit and debt.
As to your claim that we already may be in depression, on what do you base that? Do you have any statistics, any evidence to back it up, or is it just your political bias speaking? How do you define a depression anyway? Is it 9% unemployment and 2% inflation when a Democrat is in power (and 25% unemployment and 20% inflation when a Republican is in power)?
The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press. - SJP
Notice that the word "de facto" is conspicuous by its absence. - Extrafire
Extrafire, also notice that I said that ‘Republican base’ elected him the leader. It is common knowledge that Republican base does not have official elections for the Party leader, the base do not elect the Republican Party leader in an election. So it is implied that base elected him the de facto leader.
It is similar to saying that environmentalist movement elected Gore as their leader. Since environmentalists do not elect a leader in an election, it means that they elected Gore the de facto leader.
OK, I'm going to put this in a way that even you can understand. I said the consequence of the successful implementation of O's policies will be a devastated economy.
Now, this is where I have a problem, Extrafire (and this is where we differ). A policy is a success if it achieves the desired, the stated aim, if it fixes what it was intended to fix, if it fixes what it says it is going to fix.
Obama has said that if his polices are successful, it will revitalize the economy, and put the country on the road to recovery. If his polices fail, it means that economic pain will continue.
This is the marker laid down by Obama for the success or failure of his policies. Who gave you the right to invert it, say that right is left and left is right? Obama says that successful implementation of his polices will result in revitalized economy, failure will result in devastated economy. I take him at his word. You don’t’ have any authority to invert the definition of success and failure unilaterally.
I said that the damage could last for decades. I didn't say it would cause a depression. I did say that we may already be in a depression and that O's actions would likely prolong it for years.
Again, if the polices are successful, economy will recover. Whether it does any lasting damage will depend upon how the party in power after the recovery (Democrats or Republicans) deals with the national deficit and debt.
As to your claim that we already may be in depression, on what do you base that? Do you have any statistics, any evidence to back it up, or is it just your political bias speaking? How do you define a depression anyway? Is it 9% unemployment and 2% inflation when a Democrat is in power (and 25% unemployment and 20% inflation when a Republican is in power)?
A depression to a conservative is being depressed because they are not controlling the purse strings. It may be that extrafire is depressed because he doesn't get to ogle Sarah Palin for the next four years or listen to her god given words of wisdom. Praise god!
Just trying to figure SJP out. He refers to Francis 2004 as Extrafire...or is it Firstfire...or maybe Keep the Home Fires Burning.
It's hard to figure out what he's talking about but it would be nice to know who he's talking to.