Is Obama the worst president ever?

[SirJosephPorter]

It's all partisan baloney. If you're on the right Obama could walk and water and be criticized for his poor swimming. Same goes the other way. Don't you guys get sick of backing one side over any issue that has any result?

Obama derangement syndrome has been in place since the day Obama was elected. Republicans started blaming Obama for the current meltdown practically the day he was elected.

And this hatred is worse than anything Republicans displayed for Clinton, I don’t remember any Republican blaming Clinton for the economic situation in November of 1992, right after he got elected.

And James Carville explained the severity of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Many conservatives, Republicans feel that Obama really isn’t one of them. While Clinton also wasn’t one of them (he was brought up by a single mother), at least he was white.

But Obama shatters all the stereotypes. He is not white, his father was a foreigner. He grew up in the rather exotic places, such as Hawaii or rough parts of Chicago. Many conservatives don’t really think he is a typical, loyal American (hence the birther movement, which considers him to be an illegal alien). Many conservatives think that he has divided loyalties (to Kenya, to Indonesia etc.).

That is why Obama Derangement Syndrome is much more severe, much more intense, hatred for him much more visceral than Bush or Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Indeed, does anybody doubt that if Republicans win control of Senate and/or House in November the first thing they will do is start impeachment proceedings against Obama?

 

[JLM]

"Quite so, there has been a steady improvement in the job situation since Obama took office. In the beginning, of course nobody thought anything of it. After all, if you have only 400, 000 job losses rather than 500,000, that is hardly anything to boast about, is it? But the job picture kept on improving slowly and by now there is jobs growth."


True. But according to Republicans, any success on the part of the Obama agenda is a "failure" as far as they are concerned.

Number of jobs is minimally important, type of jobs is much more important. As far as Obama goes I think the only jobs he has any real control of would be his office staff. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are correct.... The liberals have spent a great deal of time as the opposition.

Let us see, now. As I recall, Trudeau came to office in 1968. The best PM we have ever had according to Canadians, or the worst PM according to conservatives (but then isn’t every Liberal PM the worst PM ever, same as to Republicans, every Democratic president is the worst president ever?).

Since than, conservatives have been in office for less than 13 years (8 Mulroney, less than one for Clark, less than 4 Harper), Liberals for 29 years. Now to any 1st grade student it would be evident that Liberals have been in power a lot longer than Conservatives, that it is the Conservatives who have spend a great deal of time in opposition. But then Conservative math is probably different than Canadian math.

It would certainly seem that way considering the billions upon billions that AB has contributed into equalization.

Alberta has contributed oil money in the form of taxation. In the old days when Alberta was an impoverished province, it has also collected plenty from Ottawa. It is all part of being part of Canada. If you don't like it, there is always the separation.

I guess that you are right!

Hey, I am right most of the time.

... And lose my daily fix of comic relief in Dion, Ignatief and the rest of the Keystone Kops? ... Hell no!

Surely you don’t mean that. Are you saying that NDP as the opposition won’t provide similar comic relief? The difference is that some day Conservatives are going to lose, Liberals are going to form a government (much as you may think that is impossible). NDP can never do that.

So it is the fondest wish of many Conservatives that Liberal party marches into oblivion, NDP become the only opposition (after all we must have at least a pretense of democracy, mustn’t we) and Conservatives stay in power perpetually.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's fun to jab the conservative stick at Porter...

Well, then we are soul mates. I like to get under the skin of conservatives (which is not at all difficult, many conservatives have a very thin skin, defeat them in argument and they immediately resort to personal insults, personal abuse).

But you will find I am a very easy person to talk to.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How do they survive in this life? There is no challenge to be a liberal in Canada.

No, but it is a challenge to be a liberal in USA. USA is a very conservative country compared to Canada or indeed, to most of the developed world. The very fact that a centrist, middle of the road politician like Obama (that is how he would be perceived anywhere else in the developed world) is considered a liberal in USA is the proof positive of that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well again, you're using different figures. You're using state unemployment rates, while I'm using national monthly job losses/gains.

In some of the states you mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised to see monthly job gains, but a rise in the unemployment rate at the same time, which is possible. The figures can contradict each other sometimes because they're measuring two slightly different things.

Quite so. In the beginning of the recovery, unemployment can actually go up. That is because people who have become discouraged, have given up looking for work as a result of the downturn, feel encouraged by the recovery and reenter the job market, start looking for work again.

So it is normal for unemployment to rise in the initial stages of the recovery. That is why it is the jobs created or destroyed that is the more realistic measure of the economy, rather than unemployment itself.

With sustained recovery, unemployment starts going down. But it is not at all unusual for unemployment to go up slightly in the initial stages of recovery.

Anyway, I think unemployment is down nationally.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think if Lehman Bros. wasn't allowed to fail in September 2008, it might have prevented a lot of this.

I have already commented on this before (maybe you were not in the forum at that time). In the hindsight, it was a huge mistake on Bush’s part to let Lehman Brothers fail.

After Lehman Brothers failed, there was a total panic in the market, all the credit froze up completely. With nobody lending to anybody, the whole world would have plunged into depression in a couple of weeks. That is why Bush put together the stimulus package in such a hurry (which Republicans enthusiastically supported, but there were adamantly opposed when Obama did the same thing). Lehman Brothers going belly up turned a normal, everyday recession into something close to a depression.

If Bush had spent a few billion $ bailing out Lehman Brothers, the huge big stimulus package that followed may well have been unnecessary. However, such a move would have been suicidal, politically. There was no political mileage at all out of such a move; it would have been intensely unpopular in the country. And if Bush had then argued that by rescuing Lehman Brothers he saved the country from a much bigger disaster, who would have believed him?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The problem for Obama is that the Republicans did so much damage to the economy. Had the Democrats not saved the banks and car companies there
would have been a depression.

You are quite right, but such arguments are very difficult to make, politically. It is along the same lines as Bush not rescuing Lehman Brothers. By rescuing Lehman Brothers, probably neither of the two stimulus packages (one by Bush, other by Obama) would have been necessary. But there is no way such argument would have carried any weight with the people, move to rescue Lehman Brothers would have been hugely unpopular.

So yes, Obama did what had to be done to stave off a depression. But politically it is not an easy argument to make. The economy is expected to keep improving for the next couple of years and no doubt that will help Obama in 2012.

 

[ironsides]

I know this is a letter of a man that will never read my comment but it was posted by a member here .

"Money is your god now" Ever since the democrats have come to power.

"As much of that is honorable and true there were alot more conflicts that could of freed alot of strangers that the U.S. could of gotten involved with..Rwanda, Bosnia-Yugoslavia area but the fact that they had no resources of interest they dragged thier feet till thousands died needlessly."

The U.S. was involved in those area's.

 

[TenPenny]

Rescuing Lehmann Brothers would only have postponed the inevitable. The whole derivates scheme was a house of cards, built on the idea that if you bundle a bunch of sewage together, and then bundle bunch of bunches of sewage, it's no longer sewage.

 

[ironsides]

No, but it is a challenge to be a liberal in USA. USA is a very conservative country compared to Canada or indeed, to most of the developed world. The very fact that a centrist, middle of the road politician like Obama (that is how he would be perceived anywhere else in the developed world) is considered a liberal in USA is the proof positive of that.

I know you adore our President, but maybe you can answer this?

Why does President Obama have so many X Goldman Sachs execs. working for him. How can he and the administration be held blameless. The Democrats cannot accuse Goldman Sachs of anything they have not and are not doing now. This is just another way that hypocrite has sold out the country. He is the worse we have ever had, no more smoke and mirrors.

 

[ironsides]

I know this is a letter of a man that will never read my comment but it was posted by a member here .

Forgot one other comment you made: "Why is it that the mindset of having done service has to mean something? Many men have as good or greater values that never had served."


By the way, I personally think that those physically able who have never served their country whether in the military or something like the Peace Corps, volunteered atleast a couple of years of their lives to doing something for their country (anything) other than think of their own little lives, have lead very little lives. I do believe that everyone should help everyone else.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Rescuing Lehmann Brothers would only have postponed the inevitable. The whole derivates scheme was a house of cards, built on the idea that if you bundle a bunch of sewage together, and then bundle bunch of bunches of sewage, it's no longer sewage.

Oh, it most certainly was. However, if the credit markets had not completely frozen, we were looking at ordinary, run of the mill recession. As to derivatives, yes it was a Ponzi swindle, but we have survived Ponzi swindles before. There was the SNL crises (there were several criminal convictions as a result of SNL crises, there have been none so far), there was the dot com meltdown. And remember the junk bond crises with Michael Milkin and Drexel Burnham Lambert going belly up?

Such shocks hit the economy from time to time, that is to be expected, and that is what causes recessions. But complete freeze of the credit market will cause a depression (worldwide) in a short order, within a matter of weeks. These days no business gets done without credit.

If it had not been for the credit crises (caused as a result of Lehman Brothers going belly up), we would be looking at an ordinary recession (caused by derivatives, sub prime lending etc.). The credit freeze came on top of all that and made matters much wrose.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I know you adore our President, but maybe you can answer this?

Why does President Obama have so many X Goldman Sachs execs. working for him. How can he and the administration be held blameless. The Democrats cannot accuse Goldman Sachs of anything they have not and are not doing now. This is just another way that hypocrite has sold out the country. He is the worse we have ever had, no more smoke and mirrors.

Surely you mean ex-executives, and not executives? As to that I don’t know. Is it a common practice in your country? How many ex business executives did Bush have working for him? Does Obama have more than his share? Unless that is the case, it is nonsense to blame him for the practice.

As to him being the worst ever, yes, I know that is how Republicans feel. But then do you think Carter was better than Obama? Or Clinton was better than Obama? Surely not.

Isn’t every Democratic president the worst ever (and every Republican president the best ever)?

Unfortunately for you, the country disagrees with you. Obama’s approval rating at this stage is about where Clinton and Reagan were at this point in their presidency.

 

[Slim Chance]

How do they survive in this life? There is no challenge to be a liberal in Canada.

They live a miserable existence. However, the challenge is in perpetuity in that anytime someone excels at anything, the run-of-the-mill Canadian liberal is faced with the daunting task of taxing and penalizing the advance(s) in the name of societal preservation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

They live a miserable existence. However, the challenge is in perpetuity in that anytime someone excels at anything, the run-of-the-mill Canadian liberal is faced with the daunting task of taxing and penalizing the advance(s) in the name of societal preservation.

Indeed. I suppose that is why Liberal party is the natural party of government in Canada, with Conservatives serving only short periods from time to time.

 

[Slim Chance]

The problem for Obama is that the Republicans did so much damage to the economy. Had the Democrats not saved the banks and car companies there would have been a depression. Most people don't understand the is a thing out there, called derivatives, or leveraged funds, and that is really a form of
investment debt, that could not be covered by the world let alone America.
Out there is somewhere between 890 and 950 trillion dollars, if the system
were to collapse. The same problem hit the Japanese economy over twenty
years ago and to this day the Japanese economy has never fully recovered.

For those on the political right it is a lesson electing George Bush was like
putting Gilligan in charge of the Island. Obama is smart as compared to
what was there before him, and now he has to clean up the mess the
Republicans left behind.

Your comment over simplifies the situation. Derivatives have been around for a long time now; you might recall it was the undoing of Barrings Bank out of the UK - 1 trader collapsed the entire institution from Singapore.

This situation is not the fault of any one political party.

If you are seeking to apply direct responsibility of the present, financially challenging times onto one nation or administration, you are in murky waters. The real estate debacle began decades ago when Carter relaxed regulations. Every administration from that point forward ignored the issue and never recognized the potential ramifications.

Blaming Bush solely for that eventuality is without merit.

 

[Slim Chance]

Indeed. I suppose that is why Liberal party is the natural party of government in Canada, with Conservatives serving only short periods from time to time.

Indeed... The liberals are a miserable bunch.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed... The liberals are a miserable bunch.

So, are the Canadians also a miserable bunch, for electing Liberals to government again and again?

 

[JLM]

Indeed... The liberals are a miserable bunch.

Actually, for the most part I don't think they are, just a few ignorant ones whose incessant yapping just makes it look that way:lol::lol::lol::lol: Liberals, Conservatives much the same thing.