What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

.....Abraham Lincoln
Along the same line here's a copy from another forum.......:smile:

Tax System explained in beer.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a Dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, this is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

.....Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln makes a lot of sense, ironsides. He was truly a great man.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Re #337.

Like SirJosephPorter would say, So what? Lincoln was nothing but a bigoted, racist, homophobe anti-gay Republican conservative extremist.

Nice try, Yukon, but it won’t wash. During Lincoln’s days Republican was the liberal party; Democratic was the conservative party, because of the presence of all those Southern Democrats.

Nixon changed all that, with his Southern Strategy. He deliberately moved the Republican Party to the right (though he himself belonged to center right, same as Eisenhower and Ford), made it racist, sexist and homophobic to appeal to Southern whites.

And for a while it worked. The problems is, now blacks, women, gays, Hispanics and other minorities, young etc. are terrified of the Republican Party, and that is why Republican Party had two disastrous election in 2006 and 2008.

Indeed, Republican Party has move so far to the right that Reagan and Goldwater would be thrown out of the party today, as RINOs, as another Arlen Specter.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Along the same line here's a copy from another forum.......:smile:

Tax System explained in beer.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a Dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, this is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

The professor is an greedy idiot, no matter, he's part of a dying breed who's immanent extinction at the hands of the hungry mob will hardly be noted. The rich pay nothing, never have and never will. Of course there are still complete fools who believe that the wealthy shoulder the burden of nations. :smile:
 

Trex

Electoral Member
Apr 4, 2007
917
31
28
Hither and yon
What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?


Failing at what exactly?

Rolling back the world recession?
Fixing all America's economic troubles?
Reforming American health care?
Implementing his myriad campaign promises?
Enacting world peace and harmony?

In a way he has succeeded simply by becoming elected President of the United States.
As to the future he is bound to fail in some of his goals, promises and commitments.

I really am only concern about his impact on Canada.
As a Canadian what he achieves or fails at home is not really a big concern of mine.
Things that he does that affect Canada and my fellow Canadians are however a big concern of mine.

Truthfully I was worried about Obama.
He promised protectionist policies while on the campaign trail.
He came from the rust belt which is known for its protectionist feelings and anti free trade position.
And he appeared to support laws and bills which would try to force other countries (like Canada) into paying for American environmental and social programs with unfair trade tariff's .

Thankfully he has been less aggressive in pursuing anti Canadian policies than he promised on the campaign trail.
Hopefully he will not allow his administration or Congress to screw Canadians too vigorously in the future.
The ever "thickening" border for trade goods between Canada and the Americans for example is a blatant attempt by the Americans to slow and restrict Canadian trade into the United States in order to stimulate local home based business.
The obviously poor choice of Janet Napolitano as border security guru is just another example of Obama's administration's efforts in protectionist policies.

So while I wish Obama and the Americans well in the future, as a Canadian I have to say that I sincerely hope they fail in all there "lets screw over Canada" protectionist business policies.

Trex
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Failing at what exactly?

Rolling back the world recession?
Fixing all America's economic troubles?


Trex, these two are the ones I am really concerned about, since they also affect the world. If Obama can fix US economy, that will roll back the world recession.

Reforming American health care?
Implementing his myriad campaign promises?


As you rightly point out, these are really domestic matters for USA and do not concern anybody else.

Enacting world peace and harmony?

Nobody can do that (except Jesus, if you believe in him).

Thankfully he has been less aggressive in pursuing anti Canadian policies than he promised on the campaign trail.

A politician usually makes a lot of promises on the campaign trail. He intends to keep some of them, others he has no intention of keeping. I don’t think Obama ever had any intention of keeping his promise to change NAFTA. It was similar to Chrétien’s promise to renegotiate NAFTA; he had not the slightest intention of doing so.

Some promises a politician makes just to get elected, almost every politician does that (e.g. McCain promised to balance the US budget within four years, do you think he had any intentions of doing that?).

So while I wish Obama and the Americans well in the future, as a Canadian I have to say that I sincerely hope they fail in all there "lets screw over Canada" protectionist business policies.

I don’t think there is a lot to worry about there, Trex. I will be very surprised if US turns protectionist.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
As you rightly point out, these are really domestic matters for USA and do not concern anybody else.

Everything and anything the US does should concern anybody it affect. If you assume US health policy is strictly a domestic issue, you obviously don't understand the issue. Of course, if your wife were actually a doctor, you would have a better understanding of how the workings of their system affects ours.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
2 things can happen if the Big O fails: the planet recovers and moves on with him; or the planet recovers and moves on without him.

Quite Right, Gilbert, the planet will survive whether Obama succeeds or fails. The difference is that if he succeeds, we get a recovery next year, if he fails, we may not get a recovery for another ten years (as I demonstrated in the original thread).
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
2 things can happen if the Big O fails: the planet recovers and moves on with him; or the planet recovers and moves on without him.

AWESOME!

What are the consequences if Napoleon fails...

What are the consequences if Ceasar fails...

What are the consequences if the Pharoah fails...

"The grave yards are filled with irreplaceable men." - De Gaul
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
AWESOME!

What are the consequences if Napoleon fails...

What are the consequences if Ceasar fails...

What are the consequences if the Pharoah fails...

"The grave yards are filled with irreplaceable men." - De Gaul

Good day Eagle S, Obama will not fail Obama will be another Bill Clinton, the American people had enough of the Cons, America is on the way to be liked again.
The Con Republicans have painted a very scary picture for the world to see of how brutal the American Conservative mind can be.

Obama, Cheney face off over Guantanamo

TheStar.com | World | Obama, Cheney face off over Guantanamo


Dick Cheney the war mongorer is a political thorn of the past, and today he would nock Obama and still justify that the GuantanamoBAY should remain active. The bush legacy is about war mongering and torture.

Here is another example of racism John McCain, thank God he never became the President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bpKLqDZtSg



 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Good day Eagle S, Obama will not fail Obama will be another Bill Clinton, the American people had enough of the Cons, America is on the way to be liked again.

Ummm... good day to you!

You looooove him. lol. Thats OK. To each his own.

I think you missed the point though... Pass...Fail... the world will go on either way.

The Con Republicans have painted a very scary picture for the world to see of how brutal the American Conservative mind can be.

Oh yeah?

Obama, Cheney face off over Guantanamo

I do not know why they are facing off... they both seem to be in agreement. The difference is that Cheney was part of the Administration that started Guantanamo and Obama is the one that is going to keep it open... regardless of his campaign promise...

Hey... you're right... he IS just like Bill Clinton!
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
...Obama will be another Bill Clinton...
Is he getting gummers in the OO?

Dick Cheney the war mongorer is a political thorn of the past, and today he would nock Obama and still justify that the GuantanamoBAY should remain active. The bush legacy is about war mongering and torture.
Obama talks the talk but he hasn't walked the walk...at least not yet. So far, I've seen more of the same. The US could have re-elected Dubya for all that matters.
Here is another example of racism John McCain, thank God he never became the President.
It would seem that you haven't figured out the definition of racism.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
You keep changing it every time I call you on the BS. Weasel words. Why not just admit you made it up? And where's that big press story?

The big press story was awhile ago, Extrafire, you apparently missed it.

Bull Tweety! There was no press story. If there was you'd have linked to it. Admit it, you made that up.

As I said, de facto leader means that nobody elected him in an official election; he forcibly took on the mantle of leadership.
Oh, now he "forcibly" took on the leadership!:lol: He staged a coup, did he? First you said they chose him leader, then when I called you on it, you changed it to "de facto" leader, and now you're saying he staged a putch. Now I'm really curious. How did he go about that? Did he have his troops invade Republican headquarters and kill the real leader and his followers? Can't wait to hear how that was done.


But let me ask you something. Can any Republican say anything unflattering about Limbaugh, disagree with Limbaugh about the smallest detail and get away with it?
Absolutely, yes. They do it all the time.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
A policy is a success if achieves its intended aim. The "stated" aim, however, may be completely different from the intended aim. Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy.

And how do you know all this, Extrafire? Do you have an inside track to Obama, does he confide in you, tell you what his intentions are? He has stated his aim, that he wants to improve the economy, clean up the gigantic mess left by Bush and the Republicans. Who told you that his aims are something different? Do you have any evidence for your contention (other than the far right blogs)?
Yup. I've already mentioned it. The evidence is his actions (and some of his statements). He was quite clear on his intention to socialize medicine. His actions are all bringing about socialization of the economy and he refused to allow a bank to return the money. That's pretty obvious.
It's the socialization of the economy that Republicans want him to fail at (something you've been told repeatedly).

By socialization of the economy I assume you are referring to his stimulus package (though you conveniently seem to forget that your President, Bush enacted the first stimulus package). The stimulus package is designed to pull the economy out of the ditch that Bush put it in.
That might be valid if all he was doing was handing out money. But he's using that to gain control of the auto industry and the banking industry. I haven't forgotten that Bush was the first to spend bailout money (not stimulous although he was in favor of it). He wasn't my president, and I was equally opposed to him doing that. Lots of political leaders, seeing what the depth of the crash was, are desperately printing money and hoping against hope that they can avoid another depression. But I'd be real surprised if it worked. They can't print that much money without hyperinflation resulting. Remember Germany in the 1930's? Zimbabwe? You can't print money to pay off debt and you can't spend your way out of debt. They tried it in the dirty thirties too, and it didn't work then, only made things worse. Bad debt has been building up in the US economy since Clinton brought in that act (HUD?) that amended the CRA from Carter. Bush bears some responsibility for not reversing it when he had the chance, but most of the blame rests on Clinton, ACORN (including their employee, Obama) and the Democrats who blocked all attempts to stop it.

Keep in mind too, that it's not just the US, it's the world that's in trouble. Europes banks are in much worse shape than Americas - they're leveraged up to 40 - 1!
[/quote]

So when you hope that his stimulus package fails, you are hoping for another depression, with unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20%.
For the 14th time, I DON"T hope his stimulus package fails, and neither do the Republicans. We hope his socialization policies fail. How many times do you have to be told?
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
This is nothing like the recessions we've been through since the end of the great depression.

You mean now it is nothing like the recession we have been through, before November it was just the run of the mill recession, after Obama got elected, it magically got tranformed into the worst depression ever, worse even than the Great Depression.
I guess you can't mount an effective rebuttal to my points so you have to make up all this BS so you can avoid even trying.

I refer to the recessions of 1969, 1974, 1982 and 1999. There were others too but I don't remember them. I particularly remember '82 as being very bad, but it was nothing like the current downturn.

There were signs that a recession was iminent in the run up to the election, but the meltdown that occurred midway through the campaign was massive beyond all expectations, except maybe for those in the know about the subprime fiasco. The vast majority of us had no idea the scope of the crash that was upon us, and it may yet get much worse. It was no run of the mill recession, and Bush was Prez, not Obama.


The cause of the crash is unique, the depth of the crash is much deeper and so far we're pretty much paralleling the economic decline of the great depression.

Surely the cause is not unique, I thought Obama caused it.
Wow! An attempt at sarcasm! :smile: Well he was involved, but only a bit player.

Looks like the US is going to have a socialized economy and a government so deeply in debt that it would be impossible to pay it off even in a boom economy and a depression to boot.

That is your opinion. As to that, I don’t see that your candidate, McCain would have done anything differently. He would have continued Bush’s economic policies. Obama’s policy as far as stimulus is concerned is not really all that different from what Bush or McCain would have done. Where Obama differs from McCain is that Obama opposed even further massive deregulation, he opposed tax cuts for the rich etc. But as far as stimulus package was concerned, most politicians and economists were in agreement, that the stimulus package (both of them) was necessary.

I don't know what McCain would have done but I suspect he wouldn't have done the same as Bush and Obama. I heard lots of comments at the time from conservative and Republicans who were vehemently opposed to bailouts or stimulus but who reluctantly came around to supporting it after being convinced that it was necessary. Almost everyone feels that they have to do something, they have to try. Personally I toyed with that idea for a while but came to the conclusion that it was only a delaying tactic, that it would only make things worse in the long run. At first, few people, left or right, realized just how big the crash was. Now I think that many of them realize that there's little if anything that can be done.