What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

So say you. I've heard no such claims by Republicans. I have heard that about Canadas stimulus though. Do you have them confused?

No Extrafire, YOU have them confused. Around 10% of stimulus money had been spent as of early August. Republicans made this very point, they claimed that since very little stimulus money was being spent, that means that the recent sign of recovery cannot be attributed to the stimulus spending (most economists disagree with Republicans, of course, but then Republicans are only familiar with voodoo economics).

Anyway, according to an independent source, about 10% of money has been allocated as of August. And Republicans have made this claim many times.

By early August, nearly six months after the $787 billion stimulus package was signed, Recovery.org had recorded 23,160 active projects for total of $74.82 billion.

How Stimulus Money is Being Spent: Tracking Stimulus Spending Using an Independent Source | Suite101.com

So as I said you cannot speak from both sides of your mouth. Anyway, what this means is that stimulus spending will continue for the next two years, feeding money into the economy. That may lead to sustained recovery.

I don't, that's you.

Well, I agree that stimulus has helped the economy. Evidently so do you, you said so in one of your earlier posts.

Though others have pointed out that signs of a recovery are evident, I am still pessimistic. That up tick is likely due to the infusion of government money in the corporate bailouts and "stimulus" spending.

That is you speaking (from the other side of your mouth).

So make up your mind, get your line straight. Did Obama’s stimulus package help the economy or didn’t’ it? I think it did, but you seem to be confused.

No, I'm not even American.

I know that Extrafire, but in heart, spirit and mind you are a Republican. At least you thin like a Republican.

Forget inventing positions for me and just answer my post.

But as I said, you seem to be confused. Are you giving Obama the credit for revitalizing the economy or are you not (like your Republican friends)? If you are giving Obama the credit (as you evidently are), that means that Obama revitalized the economy with a small amount of money. So does that mean that pumping money into the economy for next two years (I assume it will take that long to spend the stimulus money) help stimulate the economy for the next two years?

 

[Cannuck]

...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.

Perhaps you should confine your comments to things you have a basic understanding of...

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait began in January 1991 and was a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which took over Kuwait and entered Iraqi territory."

Of course they invaded Iraq. They simply quit advancing when Sadman waved the white flag.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

So what. You said Bush tried to go it alone. It was proven that he didn't. You are trying to move the goal posts again.

 

[EagleSmack]

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.

Wrong again!

 

[EagleSmack]

So what. You said Bush tried to go it alone. It was proven that he didn't. You are trying to move the goal posts again.

Does that surprise you?

 

[thatone]

I like how you mentioned Rush Limbaugh, funny. He's an entertainer, and nothing close to the leader of the Republican party. With that being said, am I the only one to think that Obama has already failed?

Removed the ban on stem cell?

Putting tentative dates on gitmo and iraq?

His socialist health care plan?

Maybe im the only one. Regardless, his approval ratings are sinking faster then the Republican party, and I look forward to seeing someone else in the White House come 2012. Unfortunately, Bush cannot serve a 3rd term

 

[Extrafire]

Fears of a "double-dip" recession surfaced again Monday as investors and economists expressed concern that massive government stimulus has succeeded in stabilizing economies, but failed to trigger lasting growth.

The growing suspicion that recent advances in several big economies are not sustainable swamped the good news Monday that Japan technically emerged from its longest slump in 60 years by posting an impressive 0.9 per cent advance - 3.7 per cent annualized - in the second quarter.

Last week, Germany and France also reported positive growth in the second quarter, officially ending their recessions.

Still, world stock markets tumbled Monday. In Toronto, the Canadian market's key index fell more than 316 points or nearly three per cent, as investors worried about the impact of falling energy prices on Canadian resources stocks.

"The recovery is basically on the back of massive fiscal (government) stimulus," noted economist Sal Guatieri of BMO Capital Markets.

"We should be happy relative to where we were three months ago with the global economy on a landslide downward, (but) we're still far from durable, strong recovery."

In a television interview Monday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty underlined the importance of his government's actions in supporting the economy, saying Canadians are starting to see an increase in construction activity from the federal infrastructure fund.

The worry, however, is that when the trillions of dollars countries are pouring into their economies run out sometime next year, whatever growth generated from the artificial spending will disappear, plunging the world into a second slump - hence the term "double-dip," or "W-shaped" recovery.

Prince George Citizen - As evidence of growth spreads, so does fear about second dip in recession

 

[SirJosephPorter]

With that being said, am I the only one to think that Obama has already failed?

Not at all, that one, millions of Americans (extreme right Republican base) knew Obama had failed even before he took office. So you are not the only one, you are in good company.

Regardless, his approval ratings are sinking faster then the Republican Party

Obama’s approval ratings are comparable to where Bush and Clinton were at this point in their presidency (Obama may even be higher than Clinton). And that by itself is an astounding achievement.

When Bush came to power in Jan 1993, the economy was roaring ahead, the country was in great shape, thanks to Clinton. All Bush had to do was ride the wave of prosperity and take credit for it.

When Obama took office, economy was in the toilet, thanks to Bush, with a real possibility of depression staring the whole world in face. Even now, while economy has improved thanks to Obama’s efforts, the economic conditions are still very difficult.

So in these difficult economic times, Obama’s popularity is comparable to where Bush was, in extremely favorable economic times, when unemployment was low, there was a healthy budget surplus (Bush had not yet blown it all away on the tax cuts for the rich).

So the fact that Obama’s approval is comparable to that of Bush at this point in presidency is a huge accomplishment on the part of Obama.

and I look forward to seeing someone else in the White House come 2012. Unfortunately, Bush cannot serve a 3rd term

Sure Bush can, there is Jeb Bush. After he has served eight years, why I assume you could get one of the Bush daughters to continue the Bush dynasty.

Besides, what is wrong with Joan of Ark? I though she was going to be the Saviour of USA (And the whole world). Obama has transformed USA into practically a third world country (with unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20%) and Joan of Ark will make it the greatest country in the world, with unemployment of 0.1%, inflation 0.5%.

So it could be Joan of Ark, it could be Jeb Bush, as long as you have a Republican in the White House, it is paradise in USA, Heaven in earth. So what is the problem?

 

[EagleSmack]

Obama's approval ratings are plumetting. That is the big talk and there is a lot of infighting within the Democrat party between Democrats and radical liberal Democrats.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: President’s Approval Rating

I wouldn’t be too worried—as there is no mechanism in the United States of America (unfortunately, in my opinion) whereby to remove a president solely due to disapproval amongst the population, His Excellency the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, has ample opportunity to turn around public opinion. The complete mess handed over to the president by The Honorable George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States. At least there is word today that the Congress of the United States might push through health care reform notwithstanding the opposition of the conservative movement—at least someone has some common sense!

 

[EagleSmack]

I wouldn’t be too worried—as there is no mechanism in the United States of America (unfortunately, in my opinion) whereby to remove a president solely due to disapproval amongst the population, His Excellency the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, has ample opportunity to turn around public opinion. The complete mess handed over to the president by The Honorable George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States. At least there is word today that the Congress of the United States might push through health care reform notwithstanding the opposition of the conservative movement—at least someone has some common sense!

You are right in a way...The man you crowned King Obama has a little over three years left at least.

Nobody handed the mess to Obama...he wanted it. He's got it! You sound a little like him as he said...

"We didn't want this job but we got it."

Really Obama?

Oh Congress will try to ram something through against the will of the people. This time there will be no town meetings.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Question of American Democracy

How can Congress “ram something through against the will of the people”? Unless I am mistaken, both the Senate and the House of Representatives were selected by the people of the United States themselves. Such is the nature of representative democracy—members of the Democratic Party of the United States, should they have adequate numbers, have the absolute moral and legal authority to pass whatever laws or proposals as they deem appropriate. The United States population elected a majority-Democratic Congress—this is ‘the People’ at work.

Unless of course, EagleSmack, you argue that the Congress, as an institution, is somehow inherently non-democratic. Perhaps the sphere of United States politics and debate would be a more stable one, were you to have the advantages of an unelected chamber (such as the Honourable the Senate of Canada). There is something to be said for representatives selected through some method other than election—perhaps the United States could go back to senators appointed by the State? It might make for less partisanship when it comes to debate.

Oh, and I crowned no one ‘king’. As I trust I’ve mentioned to you elsewhere, the Department of Canadian Heritage prescribes that any foreign head of State, out of respect, be accorded the style Excellency—and that the United States head of State, out of added respect for the close relationship that Canada and the United States share, be accorded the added style of The Honorable (as no other head of State or Government outside of the Commonwealth of Nations is addressed so). The Web site for Canadian heritage has a table of styles for foreign dignitaries here, for further data, EagleSmack.

 

[EagleSmack]

How can Congress “ram something through against the will of the people”? Unless I am mistaken, both the Senate and the House of Representatives were selected by the people of the United States themselves. Such is the nature of representative democracy—members of the Democratic Party of the United States, should they have adequate numbers, have the absolute moral and legal authority to pass whatever laws or proposals as they deem appropriate. The United States population elected a majority-Democratic Congress—this is ‘the People’ at work.

LOL. Really...LOL

Congress can easily ram something through without the will of the people. Just because the people put them in office does not mean they answer to the people. They hedge their bets.

"If I vote against my constituents wishes...do I have time to win back their favor? Will they remember this vote or will they forget it by election time?"

That's how.

Unless of course, EagleSmack, you argue that the Congress, as an institution, is somehow inherently non-democratic.

Ever hear of the Republic? We are not a true democracy...never have been.

Perhaps the sphere of United States politics and debate would be a more stable one, were you to have the advantages of an unelected chamber (such as the Honourable the Senate of Canada).

I will stick to the Republic as opposed to the English system. It has it's good points along with it's bad points.

There is something to be said for representatives selected through some method other than election—perhaps the United States could go back to senators appointed by the State? It might make for less partisanship when it comes to debate.

Who is the state?
Do explain!

Oh, and I crowned no one ‘king’. As I trust I’ve mentioned to you elsewhere, the Department of Canadian Heritage prescribes that any foreign head of State, out of respect, be accorded the style Excellency—and that the United States head of State, out of added respect for the close relationship that Canada and the United States share, be accorded the added style of The Honorable (as no other head of State or Government outside of the Commonwealth of Nations is addressed so). The Web site for Canadian heritage has a table of styles for foreign dignitaries here, for further data, EagleSmack.

Like I said...if Canadians prefer to call a President His Exellency go for it...to us it means King and we do not call him King although some would prefer to call Obama as such.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obama's approval ratings are plumetting. That is the big talk and there is a lot of infighting within the Democrat party between Democrats and radical liberal Democrats.

Talk is cheap, EagleSmack. Put up some numbers. According to latest poll I saw on CNN, Obama’s approval rating was around 56%, comparable to what Bush and Clinton had at this point in time (I think CNN said that it was slightly higher than that for Clinton, but I am not sure).

Anyway, what does your Republican pollster, Rasmussen says? Has Obama sunk lower than Bush’s all time low (low 20s) yet?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nobody handed the mess to Obama...he wanted it. He's got it!

Sure he was handed the mess by Bush, EagleSmack. Now, you probably think that there was nothing wrong with the economy when Bush handed it over to Obama, You probably think that the economy was roaring ahead when Bush left the office (with unemployment 0.1%, inflation 0.1%, budget surplus 500 billion$). No doubt that is what you and the Republican base thinks.

But Bush left Obama an economy that was about to fall of the cliff into the abyss of depression, and Obama has at least pulled it back from the brink.

Oh Congress will try to ram something through against the will of the people.

I hope Congress passes something against the will of the Republicans (if the Republicans refuse to cooperate). No doubt ‘will of Republicans’ and ‘will of the people’ is synonymous to you).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Unless of course, EagleSmack, you argue that the Congress, as an institution, is somehow inherently non-democratic.

Sure Congress is non-democratic, FiveParadox, it is controlled by the Democrats. Up until two years ago, until end of 2006, it was very Democratic, the paragon of virtue, model of democracy itself, because it was controlled by the Republicans.

The same way that Bush left a thriving, roaring, booming economy to Obama (according to EagleSmack). That is how the conservative mind works. So sure, Congress is non-democratic, because it is Democratic (and will remain non-democratic at least until 2010).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Who is the state?
Do explain!

EagleSmack, until the beginning of the 20the century, Senators were elected by the state legislatures (I think they still have this system I India). I think that is was FiveParadox is talking about.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Discussion of Representative Democracy

LOL. Really...LOL

Congress can easily ram something through without the will of the people. Just because the people put them in office does not mean they answer to the people. They hedge their bets.

"If I vote against my constituents wishes...do I have time to win back their favor? Will they remember this vote or will they forget it by election time?"

That's how.

The United States population elected representatives, and they are accountable to those electors. It is up to that representative—as a true ‘representative’—to make decisions that he or she thinks are advantageous to the constituency or the State that they represent. Should the constituencies disagree with the decision of a representative or a party, then they are held responsible for that decision when he or she is denied re-election. Though these representatives, I’m sure, do what they can to defend the concerns of each constituency, there are occasions where the greater good of the nation must be paramount—otherwise there would be no purpose to a sovereign United States.

Ever hear of the Republic? We are not a true democracy...never have been.

The United States is a representative democracy. Government under ‘true democracy’ is unrealistic.

I will stick to the Republic as opposed to the English system. It has it's good points along with it's bad points.

Indeed it does, as does ours.

Who is the state?
Do explain!

I should have used the plural—unless I’m mistaken, senators used to be appointed by the States that they represented. I would argue that one way to lessen the partisan heat would be too resume a system whereby your senators are appointed. It would lead to a much less partisan Upper House—whether this would be done by state legislatures or state governors, or some hybrid system of the two, I think that it would have long-lasting advantages for the development of sound public policy and legislation.

Like I said...if Canadians prefer to call a President His Exellency go for it...to us it means King and we do not call him King although some would prefer to call Obama as such.

Unless I’m mistaken, United States presidents remain accorded the style Excellency under your own [albeit deprocated] conventions, per the style accorded to The Honorable George Washington, 1st President of the United States, and to a lesser extent, the president’s successor. The right to the style is not exclusively federal, either, with the Governor of South Carolina legally entitled to the style, too. I wonder why there is an attitude of aversion to styles and honours amongst the people of the United States? Is it insecurity about having lost its connection to the modern Commonwealth, perhaps? Or perhaps the recognition of excellence and of elevated authority has been lost?

 

[darkbeaver]

I wouldn’t be too worried—as there is no mechanism in the United States of America (unfortunately, in my opinion) whereby to remove a president solely due to disapproval amongst the population, His Excellency the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, has ample opportunity to turn around public opinion. The complete mess handed over to the president by The Honorable George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States. At least there is word today that the Congress of the United States might push through health care reform notwithstanding the opposition of the conservative movement—at least someone has some common sense!

You're forgetting the removal of JFK. Always there is extra judicial tools.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You're forgetting the removal of JFK. Always there is extra judicial tools.

Why extrajudicial, there is a perfectly legal, judicial tool to remove the president, and that is impeachment. You evidently forget Nixon. He was sure to be impeached in the House and convicted in the senate, the votes were there. That is why he resigned.

But a president cannot be impeached for low approval ratings. Well, perhaps he can, House may impeach the president, just because they don’t like the way he looks, because they hate his guts, because their extremist base demand it, indeed for almost any reason. Look at the patently political, partisan attempt to impeach Clinton.

And indeed, that is precisely what will happen if Republicans win the control of the House in 2010; their first agenda will be to impeach Obama. Very little will get done in USA in 2011, most of the country will stay glued to the TV set watching impeachment proceedings.

But impeachment cannot remove the president, for that 2/3rd votes are needed in the senate. That is an almost impossible task, in the history of USA; no president has been convicted in the Senate. Andrew Johnson came close. Nixon almost certainly would have been convicted, but he (wisely) resigned.

So a president can be removed for low approval ratings, but only if the opposite party has a majority in the House and 2/3rd majority in the senate.