What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
That sounds like the opinion of someone who wants to be in control of the world. The UN, comprised mostly of undemocratic and despotic regimes should be the arbiter of what is right, wrong or illegal in the world? But you're missing the point. Success or failure in war has nothing to do with who approves, but rather how well you fight.
They browbeat and pressured and bribed small nations to go along with them. There was considerable opinion that the bombing of Serbia was illegal too. And Clinton had no "official approval" for his attacks on Sudan or Afganistan.
I didn't say it was. That isn't the point. The point is that any sovereign nation has the right to decide when and if it goes to war and with whom. No nation need ask permission.
[/quote]
What's amusing is your reaction when bested. You've been shown what caused the meltdown and you can't deny it, so you invent some rediculous scenario off topic and attribute it to me. :lol: Or you label me and anyone else who disagrees with you a radical right wing extremist!
I accept your capitulation.
I know you like to blame all the ills of the world on them, but as I said earlier to SJP, I'm more interested in determining who was really at fault.''Only time will tell if Obama was able to avert the impending disaster of the Carter/Clinton mess or instead, created the worst crash in the history of the world.:razz:
Oh, and PS, nice to be back on topic, Gopher!:lol: ''
You must have said that with tongue in cheek because it is more properly called the Reagan/Bush I/Bush II mess.
Now go drink your koolaid....
The ones making the news are usually yelling and shouting and drowning out. But that's the reason they make the news, and then it's only the rowdy part that gets reported. I've been doing some driving at night lately and managed to pick up a few US radio stations. Yes, the protesters are indeed asking questions and demanding answers. It's only when they don't get honest answers that they sometimes get noisy.
The people are worried that they're going to be screwed. I wonder how many of the Democrats even bothered to read the bill.
YouTube - Why would I read health care bill John Conyers
I know some of the protesters have, and they're finding disturbing things. For instance, if your healthcare is covered by your employer, under the new plan you will continue to be covered by your employers plan. However if you leave that job and start a different job with a different employer, you well not be allowed to join your new employers health plan, you must sign on to the government plan. If you don't, at income tax time they will assess you 2.5% of your gross income.
If Obama was telling the truth it might help, but who knows what the truth is? During the election he was all for a single payer plan. Now he's saying he's not advocating single payer. Which is true?
Democrats could address the concerns of the protesters, but they don't. They just say they're a bunch of old white men who are racists and the only reason they're opposing the bill is because they can't stand the idea of a non-white in office. What utter crap! Sound like something you would make up.
:lol: Oh that's rich! No picture, no real name, no address and no-one knows who you are. Yes, you're very brave.
Getting back on topic, I'd like to add some more thoughts on the initial question posed by SJP.
Part I
Before we can determine the possible consequences of Obama failing, we need to know just exactly what he's trying to do. SJP postulates that he's trying to avert a depression. From what I've heard lately that isn't true.
Teh threat of a depression was extremely real. I knew about he real estate bubble years ago, as did many other people. But few if any people knew the extent of he problem and the mortgage shenanigans. Everyone thought that when the bubble burst it would have an impact but only a limited impact. Only when it happened was it realized that mortgages had been packaged as investment properties and were grossly overvalued and were spread throughout the worlds financial systems. AIG was not regulated by federal investment/banking regulation since it was an insurance company and was regulated as such by individual states. So there was a huge loophole where they got into big touble and nobody knew it.
When the banking system fell apart the Federal Reserves stepped in to save the day, but they didn't have the funds to handle a crash of such magnitude. If the banking system went down we would indeed have had that depression, because it would have been impossible for anyone to get a loan, and credit is the lifeblood of the worlds economy. At this point, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke asked the government for bailout money. His action is probably the only reason we didn't have a depression.
So will a consequence of Obama failing be a depression? Extremely doubtful, it's already been prevented before he even took office.
Part I
Before we can determine the possible consequences of Obama failing, we need to know just exactly what he's trying to do. SJP postulates that he's trying to avert a depression. From what I've heard lately that isn't true.
Teh threat of a depression was extremely real. I knew about he real estate bubble years ago, as did many other people. But few if any people knew the extent of he problem and the mortgage shenanigans. Everyone thought that when the bubble burst it would have an impact but only a limited impact. Only when it happened was it realized that mortgages had been packaged as investment properties and were grossly overvalued and were spread throughout the worlds financial systems. AIG was not regulated by federal investment/banking regulation since it was an insurance company and was regulated as such by individual states. So there was a huge loophole where they got into big touble and nobody knew it.
When the banking system fell apart the Federal Reserves stepped in to save the day, but they didn't have the funds to handle a crash of such magnitude. If the banking system went down we would indeed have had that depression, because it would have been impossible for anyone to get a loan, and credit is the lifeblood of the worlds economy. At this point, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke asked the government for bailout money. His action is probably the only reason we didn't have a depression.
So will a consequence of Obama failing be a depression? Extremely doubtful, it's already been prevented before he even took office.
Part II
So what then, is Obama trying to do? One can only assume that his purpose is to pull the US out of the recession. Since a depression now seems highly unlikely, the result of his failure will only be continued recession for quite some time.
Though others have pointed out that signs of a recovery are evident, I am still pessimistic. That uptick is likely due to the infusion of government money in the corporate bailouts and "stimulus" spending. And then there's the "cash for clunkers" program that's supposedly stimulating the auto industry back to health. Problem is, once the government money stops flowing, the spending does too, and we go right back to where we would have been without all the government spending. There's also still a lot of problems with the housing market. House prices have been delayed from returning to affordible range by government action. Again, what happens when government money stops flowing? Some extimates calculate that within 2 years 50% of all houses will be valued at less than their morgages and 12% will be in forclosure. That would be very hard on the economy, forstalling any recovery.
If that weren't enough, estimates for government debt/liability due to bailout/stimulus spending range from 12 to 25 trillion. That will be a tremendous drag on any hope of recovery. Add to that the burden of cap & trade regulations and the recession might be a permanent condition. I would suggest chances of his success are slim. I hope I'm wrong.
And then theres something else Obama is attempting, the socialization of large parts of he economy and society. In this he may be successful, which would place even more dampening on any recovery. We can only hope he fails at this part.
So what then, is Obama trying to do? One can only assume that his purpose is to pull the US out of the recession. Since a depression now seems highly unlikely, the result of his failure will only be continued recession for quite some time.
Though others have pointed out that signs of a recovery are evident, I am still pessimistic. That uptick is likely due to the infusion of government money in the corporate bailouts and "stimulus" spending. And then there's the "cash for clunkers" program that's supposedly stimulating the auto industry back to health. Problem is, once the government money stops flowing, the spending does too, and we go right back to where we would have been without all the government spending. There's also still a lot of problems with the housing market. House prices have been delayed from returning to affordible range by government action. Again, what happens when government money stops flowing? Some extimates calculate that within 2 years 50% of all houses will be valued at less than their morgages and 12% will be in forclosure. That would be very hard on the economy, forstalling any recovery.
If that weren't enough, estimates for government debt/liability due to bailout/stimulus spending range from 12 to 25 trillion. That will be a tremendous drag on any hope of recovery. Add to that the burden of cap & trade regulations and the recession might be a permanent condition. I would suggest chances of his success are slim. I hope I'm wrong.
And then theres something else Obama is attempting, the socialization of large parts of he economy and society. In this he may be successful, which would place even more dampening on any recovery. We can only hope he fails at this part.
You've been shown what caused the meltdown and you can't deny it, so you invent some rediculous scenario off topic and attribute it to me
You have showed nothing, Extrafire, except that you belong to the rabid right. Whether you like it or not, American people blamed the current meltdown on Bush and The Republicans (and quite rightly too). No matter what you think, people have spoken on the subject.
You have showed nothing, Extrafire, except that you belong to the rabid right. Whether you like it or not, American people blamed the current meltdown on Bush and The Republicans (and quite rightly too). No matter what you think, people have spoken on the subject.
They browbeat and pressured and bribed small nations to go along with them. There was considerable opinion that the bombing of Serbia was illegal too. And Clinton had no "official approval" for his attacks on Sudan or Afganistan.
You mean Bush browbeat the whole word, and bullied United Nations to support his invasion of Kuwait? How clever of him. Same way, Clinton browbeat the entire NATO (Britain, France, Germany etc.)Into supporting bombing of Serbia? Again, what a great statesman, a great diplomat.
Then why couldn’t the second Bush browbeat anybody into supporting his invasion of Iraq? The fact is, both Bush and Clinton got the support of UN and NATO, and only then they moved to military action. That was the proper thing to do.
Second Bush was a cowboy; with his shoot first, ask questions later mentality. He was not interested in bringing anybody along; he was fine going it alone. He understood only one language, I got a gun and you ain’t.
That was one of the reasons why Bush was go eager to invade Iraq; it was gunboat diplomacy pure and simple.
That isn't the point. The point is that any sovereign nation has the right to decide when and if it goes to war and with whom. No nation need ask permission.
Indeed. But as I said, just because it can be done does not mean that it is the right thing to do. If a nation insists on acting like a cowboy and empties its six shooter into a crowd, then it must be prepared to face the consequences. USA paid terrible price for its cowboy style invasion of Iraq. Huge deficits at home and scorn, ridicule internationally. Not to mention 4000 dead (more that what died in the 9/11 terrorist attack).
You mean Bush browbeat the whole word, and bullied United Nations to support his invasion of Kuwait? How clever of him. Same way, Clinton browbeat the entire NATO (Britain, France, Germany etc.)Into supporting bombing of Serbia? Again, what a great statesman, a great diplomat.
Then why couldn’t the second Bush browbeat anybody into supporting his invasion of Iraq? The fact is, both Bush and Clinton got the support of UN and NATO, and only then they moved to military action. That was the proper thing to do.
Second Bush was a cowboy; with his shoot first, ask questions later mentality. He was not interested in bringing anybody along; he was fine going it alone. He understood only one language, I got a gun and you ain’t.
That was one of the reasons why Bush was go eager to invade Iraq; it was gunboat diplomacy pure and simple.
That isn't the point. The point is that any sovereign nation has the right to decide when and if it goes to war and with whom. No nation need ask permission.
Indeed. But as I said, just because it can be done does not mean that it is the right thing to do. If a nation insists on acting like a cowboy and empties its six shooter into a crowd, then it must be prepared to face the consequences. USA paid terrible price for its cowboy style invasion of Iraq. Huge deficits at home and scorn, ridicule internationally. Not to mention 4000 dead (more that what died in the 9/11 terrorist attack).
They just say they're a bunch of old white men who are racists and the only reason they're opposing the bill is because they can't stand the idea of a non-white in office. What utter crap! Sound like something you would make up.
The Town Hall meetings that we see on TV certainly give that impression, Extrafire. Most of them are old, most of them are white, most of them are male (there are exceptions, obviously). It does not look like they are interested in any dialog. They come to the meetings to protest, they yell, they shout, they drown everybody out, including the speaker. That is not the way to advance one’s point.
Regardless of your personal experience, that is the impression created by the protesters.
The Town Hall meetings that we see on TV certainly give that impression, Extrafire. Most of them are old, most of them are white, most of them are male (there are exceptions, obviously). It does not look like they are interested in any dialog. They come to the meetings to protest, they yell, they shout, they drown everybody out, including the speaker. That is not the way to advance one’s point.
Regardless of your personal experience, that is the impression created by the protesters.
That uptick is likely due to the infusion of government money in the corporate bailouts and "stimulus" spending.
Extrafire, according to your Republican friends, very little of stimulus money has been spent, a major portion of it still remains to be spent, and will be spent over next tow years. Republicans put this claim forward to show how ineffective Obama’s stimulus package has been.
Now you claim that signs of recovery are due to stimulus spending. You can’t have it both ways (I suppose you can, you are a Republican). So which is it, has stimulus money been spent and it has been successful, or is most of the stimulus money still to be spent, indicating that stimulus will keep on feeding into the system for long time yet, and signs of recovery will persist for a long tie yet.
Extrafire, according to your Republican friends, very little of stimulus money has been spent, a major portion of it still remains to be spent, and will be spent over next tow years. Republicans put this claim forward to show how ineffective Obama’s stimulus package has been.
Now you claim that signs of recovery are due to stimulus spending. You can’t have it both ways (I suppose you can, you are a Republican). So which is it, has stimulus money been spent and it has been successful, or is most of the stimulus money still to be spent, indicating that stimulus will keep on feeding into the system for long time yet, and signs of recovery will persist for a long tie yet.
We've been over this earlier on. You made it plain at that time that you weren't interested in who was to blame, but rather that you wanted to put the blame on Bush whether he deserved it or not. That's politics, you said. And indeed it is, but I was more interested in the actual cause and the people who actually were responsible, not political blame games, and you were informed what caused the meltdown at that time, so yes, you've been shown. I know that the media, the leftists and Democrats have done their best to pin the blame on Bush (just like you, and rather successfully too in the eyes of many Americans) but once again, I'm talking about who really is to blame, not who you wish was to blame. Americans believing it was Bush doesn't make it so.
Actually it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq, and yes he did browbeat and bully SOME nations to get support, not the whole world or the UN. Apparently you weren't paying attention at the time. Clinton? no, he didn't, but there was talk of illegality at the time. And I wonder why all those European nations right next door to the fighting just sat on their butts while the US had to come all the way across the Atlantic to drop bombs in their back yard.
Incompetance?
You're omitting how they got that approval. See above.
But he didn't go it alone. Other nations are there too.
Nor does it mean that it's the wrong thing to do.
Deficits and spending were much lower in real dollars than either WWII or Vietnam. Scorn and ridicule internationally? No, hatred maybe. Scorn and ridicule is what the big O is getting from some foreign countries, though they're not all that open about it. 4000 dead in 7 years of war? They lose that many in 2 years of peace time training accidents. Every death a tragedy to be sure, but have you ever seen the casualty figures of their other wars? 600,000 dead in the civil war!
Gee, isn't that what I just said? The peaceful ones don't get coverage. Duh!
Again, you're only refering to the rowdy part of the "newsworthy" meetings. They come with concerns and they ask questions and they aren't particularly happy with what they're hearing.
No it isn't, but tehy only do that in some portions of SOME meetings when their points are ignored or they're lied to.
It's the impression created by the media.
So say you. I've heard no such claims by Republicans. I have heard that about Canadas stimulus though. Do you have them confused?
I don't, that's you.
No, I'm not even American.
Forget inventing positions for me and just answer my post. I would actually be interested in a well thought out critique.
I'm talking about who really is to blame, not who you wish was to blame. Americans believing it was Bush doesn't make it so.
Really, Extrafire? And who decides who is to blame, do you decide that? Now, we know that you don’t think Bush is to blame, and you are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn’t mean everybody has to agree with you. In my opinion, Bush and the Republicans shoulder the lions’ share of the blame.
Really, Extrafire? And who decides who is to blame, do you decide that? Now, we know that you don’t think Bush is to blame, and you are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn’t mean everybody has to agree with you. In my opinion, Bush and the Republicans shoulder the lions’ share of the blame.
Actually it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq,
Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and no, Bush sr. did not invade Iraq. With UN approval (very important), Bush invaded Kuwait to drive Saddam out. In that he succeeded with flying colours.
and yes he did browbeat and bully SOME nations to get support, not the whole world or the UN.
The Kuwait mission was approved by the UN, Extrafire.
Clinton? no, he didn't, but there was talk of illegality at the time.
Sure there was talk of illegality by the Republicans. Republicans are natural war mongers; they have not come across a war they did not like. The only exception was Serbia. Since Republicans did not start the war, they were against it. Republicans like to start the war themselves, then they are for it.
Clinton had got the support and approval of NATO, there was no talk of illegality (except the political, partisan talk by the Republicans).
And I wonder why all those European nations right next door to the fighting just sat on their butts while the US had to come all the way across the Atlantic to drop bombs in their back yard.
I don’t think US needed any country to actually participate in the bombing, I think many NATO countries did provide secondary support. If there had been a ground operation (and I was surprised that Serbia capitulated after bombing, I thought ground operation may be necessary), I assume other NATO counties would have contributed troops.
Incompetance?
Bush incompetent? Isn’t that blasphemy?
You're omitting how they got that approval. See above.
They got approval by employing legitimate means.
But he didn't go it alone. Other nations are there too.
Only other nation which participated to any appreciable extent was UK (and for that Tony Blair paid political price at home). A few other nations contributed token troops and mouthed platitudes in support. Most of the world (including Canada) was adamantly opposed to Iraq war.
Nor does it mean that it's the wrong thing to do.
Depends upon the situation, Extrafire. In the case of Iraq it was the wrong thing to do.
4000 dead in 7 years of war? They lose that many in 2 years of peace time training accidents.
Really? If 4000 dead mean nothing or very little, why all the hubbub, all the outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attack? After all, that killed ‘only’ 3000? If Bush killing 4000 by sending them to an illegal war in Iraq is no big deal, then why is the illegal terrorist attack by Osama on 9/11 such a big deal?
Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and no, Bush sr. did not invade Iraq. With UN approval (very important), Bush invaded Kuwait to drive Saddam out. In that he succeeded with flying colours.
and yes he did browbeat and bully SOME nations to get support, not the whole world or the UN.
The Kuwait mission was approved by the UN, Extrafire.
Clinton? no, he didn't, but there was talk of illegality at the time.
Sure there was talk of illegality by the Republicans. Republicans are natural war mongers; they have not come across a war they did not like. The only exception was Serbia. Since Republicans did not start the war, they were against it. Republicans like to start the war themselves, then they are for it.
Clinton had got the support and approval of NATO, there was no talk of illegality (except the political, partisan talk by the Republicans).
And I wonder why all those European nations right next door to the fighting just sat on their butts while the US had to come all the way across the Atlantic to drop bombs in their back yard.
I don’t think US needed any country to actually participate in the bombing, I think many NATO countries did provide secondary support. If there had been a ground operation (and I was surprised that Serbia capitulated after bombing, I thought ground operation may be necessary), I assume other NATO counties would have contributed troops.
Incompetance?
Bush incompetent? Isn’t that blasphemy?
You're omitting how they got that approval. See above.
They got approval by employing legitimate means.
But he didn't go it alone. Other nations are there too.
Only other nation which participated to any appreciable extent was UK (and for that Tony Blair paid political price at home). A few other nations contributed token troops and mouthed platitudes in support. Most of the world (including Canada) was adamantly opposed to Iraq war.
Nor does it mean that it's the wrong thing to do.
Depends upon the situation, Extrafire. In the case of Iraq it was the wrong thing to do.
4000 dead in 7 years of war? They lose that many in 2 years of peace time training accidents.
Really? If 4000 dead mean nothing or very little, why all the hubbub, all the outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attack? After all, that killed ‘only’ 3000? If Bush killing 4000 by sending them to an illegal war in Iraq is no big deal, then why is the illegal terrorist attack by Osama on 9/11 such a big deal?