[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

By what criteria?
'Things still suck therefore it's Obama's fault' is intellectually lazy.

Would a McCain Presidency have kept unemployment under 8% while reducing the deficit? Would a Clinton Presidency have spent the stimulus money better? How would we know if he was up to the task? What criteria are you using?

edit - open question to everyone in this thread that think Obama is failing

I believe both Clinton and McCain would have used the first stimulus more wisely. Although Obama promised infrastructure spending little occured because of the massive outlays of cash to the States. New infrastructure does only create temporary jobs but, at least there is a continual benefit for the tax payer for their investment. It is a direct way to help blue collar workers short term while gaining a return long term.

The oil and gas industry was one of the few areas that retained a robust market. Tax exemptions tied to increased domestic employment and production would have jump started that industry. Some of the research dollars given to alternative energy should have been invested in better polution control within the carbon industries. If your concerned about carbon pollution harness more of the natural gas that is so abundant in the northern States and ship it south by pipe line. That could provide clean energy for fleets of County and State vehicles.

America could work with the G8 States to develop high enviromental standard for imported goods. The disadvantage North America and Europe faces in manufactoring are compounded by our high environmental standards. We certainly don't want them lowered. We could benefit the environment greatly by agreeing as a whole to comparable standards in manufactoring for goods we import. By doing this in conjunction with other G8 States we don't put any of us at a disadvantage. It would be just like California leading the rest of the Country in auto emmission standards. Because they represent such an important part of the market the automakers comply and the whole market benefits. China and India would also comply. This wouldn't end their mononpoly on manufactoring because of their low wages but, it would help domestic manufactoring compete. China's low wages would be partly off set by automation and closeness to the market.

I don't know how much of this Clinton or McCain would have done. They might have chosen solutions that didn't work like Obama. But whoever is in the White House is ultimately responsible for the out comes. That is what makes it a hard job.

Originally Posted by Gozer

He was wrong about staying under 8%. Also, economists have revised their analysis of the recession to reflect that it was far worse than they had anticipated.
(my link in post 350 supports this claim)

It was Obama's job to be right. It is hard to imagine that any creditable economist would believe the things he spent that money on would have turned the economy around. I could see them believing that the economy would correct itself within a few months and see Obama's spending as a means of easing the pain until that day. There would have been some merit in that.

Originally Posted by Gozer

But your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Obama being wrong about the unemployment number is not evidence that he wasted the money (ignoring the presumption that it was he who decided where to spend it all) nor that the economy has no chance of correcting. One is not evidence of the other.

It is evidence that he spent almost a trillion dollars on something that didn't have the promised outcome. That is huge! It is huge because of the money involved. When the taxpayers spent that kind of money they expect results. They didn't get what was promised.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Bush didn't include Iraq or Afganistan in his budget, nor did he include his prescription drug program. Bush's budget was baloney.

And using the lack of a budget as a criticism of Obama is the kind of "screw 'em all" attitude that congressional intransigence is hoping for. The budget is under the pervue of Congress.

Here is Obama's 2012 budget if you're interested. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

The budget is under the pervue of the Congress. Obama submits a budget and both Houses debate and revise it and eventually it is sent to the President to be signed. Unfortunately his Party didn't find it politically expedient to pass any of his proposed budgets or replace it with one of their own. The reason for this is obvious. They didn't want to be accountable for agreeing to so much spending. Instead they wait for a crisis and then let the money out.

Since the Republicans took the House of Representatives budgets have been passed. These Obama promised to veto even before the vote. The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't even allowed these budgets to be debated.

Compare that to Bush. He like Clinton passed budgets every year they were in power. They did this through compromise.

When Bush proposed the perscription drug program both houses had full opportunity to debate the law. It wasn't push through with a looming dead line wherein the government would shut down.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Is any of this supposed to support your claim that Obama is responsible for media bias? Or the Tea Party? (344)

No we havn't been discussing those things.

The media bias was real and turned the election. No other candidate could have belonged to the church he did or have called that minister his mentor without being blown out of the water. Media would have been relentless in demanding explainations for inconsistancies in his academic life. How did he get into Harvard with sub-par grades? How did he become the editor of the Harvard Law review without ever publishing an article in it? Why won't he release his doctoral thesis? Obama campaigned on Hope and Change like about every other candidate before him. The difference was the rest were expected to fill in the details. If there was no media bias Hillary would have got the nomination and probably the Presidency.

The Tea party began when Bush asked for the first bail out. They gained momentum and power because of Obama's continued big spending. If Obama's had done more to control spending there is no way the Democrats would have had the losses they did in the mid terms. Obama's deficits made the Tea party relevant.