What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
''Political interference in the capitalist economy is a no-no. The market must be free to choose its own way.''

If so, why didn't anyone on this board object when Bush came up with his three stimulus bills?
I objected, but not on this board, being as I was spending very little time here at that time. A lot of conservatives and capitalists were opposed to Bush's stimulus and bailout schemes.

Here's an oppinion from April that mirrors my own. I opposed any bailout of any company, because all you do is make things worse. A company that is going down is doing so for good reason, and if you try to stop it you'll only make things worse and the bankrupcy will happen anyway.
Why General Motors and Chrysler Need to Declare Bankruptcy Immediately
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: April 1, 2009 - 10:55 PM

I have written several times now why it's in GM's best interest that they declare bankruptcy. I have provided general reasons why. Steve Priestap, my husband, offers specifics why filing Chapter 11 is best for not only GM and Chrysler, but for any American corporation the Obama administration may target in the future.

*******

The problem with selling your soul to the devil is that eventually the devil shows up and wants his due.

The current government takeover of General Motors, to the extent of the hiring and firing of corporate officers and the gratuitous guaranteeing of auto warranties, is an almost perfect illustration of why Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code exists. There is little doubt that GM is in need of the relief that is offered by Chapter 11. It's the only way they can scare off the devil, which in this case is represented by the Obama Administration.
Why General Motors and Chrysler Need to Declare Bankruptcy Immediately (Wizbang)

Comments from Fred Thompson before Obama took over. He was against GW bailouts/stimulus too.
YouTube - Fred Thompson on the Economy
 
Last edited:

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
''Where have you been? I would say that those against the stimulus bills outnumbered those for.''


Only a little. Certainly not to the extent made against Obama's actions.
Bush only had a couple months before he was out of office, so he wasn't around long enough to accumulate that much opposition.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
More interresting analysis:

New surveys show that Consumers are Just a Paycheck or Two Away From Ruin.


The results of a bevy of surveys found a growing number of consumers are only a couple paychecks away from a household collapse even as many scramble to shore up savings. Rainy-day funds appear to be a distant memory as households burn cash to cover food and energy bills as well as mortgage and car payments.

A large number of households say that even one missed paycheck would spell financial ruin. And even in households that remain well off, the surveys show a festering fear that financial problems are lurking.
"This is flashing so bright red," said Paul Ballew, senior vice president of Nationwide Insurance Co. "Roughly 60% of the population was ill-prepared (financially) before the meltdown."

A MetLife study released last week found that 50% of Americans said they have only a one-month cushion -- roughly two paychecks -- or less before they would be unable to fully meet their financial obligations if they were to lose their jobs. More disturbing is that 28% said they could not make ends meet for longer than two weeks without their jobs.

And it's not just low-income earners who would find themselves financially challenged. Twenty-nine percent of those making $100,000 or more a year said they would have trouble paying the bills after more than a month of unemployment.

Long-term retrenchment

America's Research Group found that nearly 57% of the consumers it polled said they would spend less this year while virtually no one plans to spend more.
But this is not just a one-year thing, according to consumers surveyed by BIGresearch. Nearly 91% said they see this crisis bearing down on their spending decisions -- in effect, their lifestyles -- over the next five years.

Fifty-five percent said they will think carefully before they make a purchase and 51% said they expect to be more price-conscious when buying clothing and food.
"American consumers are hunkered down, bracing for a depression," said Britt Beemer, chief executive of America's Research Group. "The dramatic drops in shopping levels have no match in our database in the last 30 years."

Long-Term Retrenchment

This is a secular shift in attitudes, not a cyclical one. Spending is not returning to levels we saw in recent years. I am still expecting 500,000 or more jobs lost in each of the next two months. Some months of 750,000 losses or more are not out of the question.

Weekly Unemployment Claims Rise
The four week moving average keeps ticking up. A year ago it was a miserable 356K claims. It is nearly double that now. If the survey is correct, half of those face ruin within a month or two.

Bear in mind, it's not just the US that's in trouble.

[...]


Central Banks In Panic Mode

Barrack Obama, Gordon Brown, Ben Bernanke, Alistair Darling, and misguided politicians everywhere are all attempting to stimulate lending when stimulated lending is what got us into the mess.

The sole exception is John Key, New Zealand's prime minister who courageously and correctly says "You Can't Spend Your Way Out of the Crisis."


[...]

Time preferences have changed (people are saving not spending). Furthermore, rising unemployment everywhere suggests that borrowed debts cannot and will not be paid back. This debt destruction still exceeds printing, and printing still exceeds lending.

All that Bernanke specifically (and central bankers in general) are likely to accomplish is to delay the destruction of debt at taxpayer expense, and thus delay the recovery. There is no Keynesian free lunch, and no hyperinflation on the horizon either.
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: A Paycheck Away From Ruin
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
More interesting opinion:
[...]

If you are dependent, then that means you're not independent. It means by default you rely on other people to carry your dead, fat weight in this economy (just like Caroline Kennedy). And whereas Malthus' concern was food production, mine is just pure simple economic production.

Though I have not run the figures, the macro-figures being posted about bailouts, as well as our cornerstone institutions showing themselves to be nothing more than parasites upon the masses, I think that there literally is not enough producers in this country to produce enough wealth to support all the people in the nation. And given the recent election of Barack Obama and his forever increasing amounts of stimulus spending, it not only convinces me the country is not serious (nor educated enough) about getting out of this recession, as much as they are about getting theirs and transferring as much wealth to themselves off this dead rotting carcass known as America. The only question I ask "where is all this money going to come from?"

Of course I ask myself the question rhetorically.

Socialists in congress combined with comrade Obama have eliminated any incentive to excel and produce the wealth necessary to bail out this economy (and I mean really bailout as in REAL economic production, not just transferring money and calling it a bailout, I mean like our problems would be over bailout). Obama and his socialist democrat ilk have done nothing more than promise to transfer wealth from one group of people to another to bribe the recipients into voting for them. Ergo, no real consideration has ever been given to how to actually increase the production of wealth as much as it has been to use a transference of existing (and dwindling) wealth for political purposes. Of course there are obvious shortcomings of this politicking;

1. With taxes going up on the rich (or as I like to say the "productive" or "employers") what incentive will the have to invest/create jobs here.

2. With wealth transfers what incentive with the burgeoning recipients have to get off their lazy, fat welfare asses and produce some kind of wealth (let alone enough to support them?)

I'm sorry folks. I know you like to believe that "America will always pull through." Or that if you "pray enough" God will save America like he always has. Sadly, the truth is nobody puts this country ahead of themselves and when you have a certain "critical percentage" of the population nothing more than a bunch of whinny, self-entitled, spoiled brat "Barack save me now" socialist parasites, your country is doomed.

Captain Capitalism: The Return of Malthus
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
A picture of progress.

The dark blue is the Obama projected unemployment with stimulus.

The light blue is the Obama projected unemployment without stimulus.

The red dots are real unemployment with the Obama stimulus

So where would you think we're heading? And how much trust do you put in the Obama prognostications?

 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
It took Roosevelt many years before he was able to fix the mess created by Republican Hoover. Expect the same from Obama.

Interesting how so many people regard Obama's work as failure but said nothing like that about Bush.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
The mess wasn't created by Bush. It's been in the works for some time now. Until you can wrap your ideological head around that simple reality, there really isn't much to discuss.


Evidently you are too blind to see the many links I posted which proved that Clinton created 24 million jobs and had the economy working like a mint. But because of your far right bias, you are too narrow minded to admit these problems were created by Bush.

As I mentioned before, we are finding fewer and fewer Yanks on forum boards still trying to defend Bush. But the far right majority on CC remains adamantly on his side. You can continue to make excuses after excuses but nobody is going to believe them except for yourselves. Attacks and more attacks on Obama will not create solutions to the mess Bush created. Nor will excuses won't win elections. Only the truth and meaningful solutions will.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
@ Extrafire:

Very interesting articles that you've contributed. The potential of Obama's actions is nothing short of rolling the dice on the lives of future generations in the USA.... Take a look at the route that Canada took under Trudeau all those years ago; we've never really recovered - it appears that Obama is taking you down that same path and that prospect should be a violently sobering and frightening thought. I won't bore you with the details of Canada's path, but suffice to say, it is bloody hard to alter course once it has changed.

I sincerely hope for your sake (and that of your compatriots) that Obama's gamble doesn't back-fire.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Evidently you are too blind to see the many links I posted which proved that Clinton created 24 million jobs and had the economy working like a mint. But because of your far right bias, you are too narrow minded to admit these problems were created by Bush.

As I mentioned before, we are finding fewer and fewer Yanks on forum boards still trying to defend Bush. But the far right majority on CC remains adamantly on his side. You can continue to make excuses after excuses but nobody is going to believe them except for yourselves. Attacks and more attacks on Obama will not create solutions to the mess Bush created. Nor will excuses won't win elections. Only the truth and meaningful solutions will.
Evidently you're to blind to see the many links that were posted which proved that Clinton was mostly responsible for the mortgage meltdown that resulted in the current mess.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Limbaugh has really gotten some of you worried, the man has you convinced that he has power in the Republican party. Rush is nothing more than another political radio jock. (actor, performer) what ever you want to call him, but a political leader, not in our lifetime. So he supports the Republican party, lots of people do (not nearly enough though) he is a moderate Republican when compared to the likes of Michael Savage. I would like to see a good Democratic DJ, but for some reason their shows never have the ratings and are dropped.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Evidently you are too blind to see the many links I posted which proved that Clinton created 24 million jobs and had the economy working like a mint.

Evidently you are too blind to see that I don't disagree that Clinton created lots of jobs and the economy was humming along while he was prez.

But because of your far left bias, you are too narrow minded to admit the problems that led to the economic downturn were systemic. Reckless lending practices began before Bush was in office. The Prez does not set oil prices. Inadequate regulation of the financial industry was happening before Dubya. In fact, it was Bush the first that weaken regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This helped boost the economy in the short term (Clinton sent him a thank you card) but it had devastating consequences in the long term.

But the far right majority on CC remains adamantly on his side. You can continue to make excuses after excuses but nobody is going to believe them except for yourselves.

The problem is that you see objectivity and an unwillingness to put all the blame on Bush as being on his side. I, and I assume many here, are not on anybody's side. Both Clinton and Bush could have done things to head off this problem and both failed to act. Of course, it's not like the general population was clamouring for something to be done.

Attacks and more attacks on Obama will not create solutions..

No but they will point out the errors of his ways.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act into law, and Bill Clinton amplified that legislation that is causing much of the problems now "

And, of course, the two biggest hypocrits, Barney Frank , the Homo pimp and Chris Dodd (waitress sandwich with Ted Kennedy) applauded it.

So, now we have sub-prime lending and financial melt-down.

Blame Bush!!
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You're preaching to the converted YJ... The mechanisms that resulted in severely undermining Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in place long before Bush.

There is no question ion my mind that there is a trend exemplified by the democrats in the States and the left in Canada that seek to place blame for any issue on whom ever is sitting in office at the moment.

As a good example, I read daily about Chalk River and how Harper has failed the nation in not doing 'something'.. The myopic-left refuse to acknowledge that the facility is over 50 years old - it has not been maintained by multiple administrations representing both ends of the political extreme. The reality is that everyone dropped the ball - but partisan politics remain blind to assuming any responsibility whatsoever.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Extrafire; said:
Evidently you're to blind to see the many links that were posted which proved that Clinton was mostly responsible for the mortgage meltdown that resulted in the current mess.


Evidently, you are too blind to see that those lies were all debunked.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''because of your far left bias, you are too narrow minded to admit the problems that led to the economic downturn were systemic.''


Because of your far right bias you have closed your little mind to the links which refuted all the Fox network lies which falsely ascribe the mess to Clinton. All that has been done already. Therefore there is no need to continually attack Obama. As you admitted, continually attacking Obama is not going to solve anything -- therefore what you of the far right need to do if you want to win in November is to show how Republicans can solve the problems they created. As the record shows continued attacks won't work for you. If anything they work to improve the patriotic Democrat victories in the elections.