So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Way too soon. I broke party lines and voted for Obama, happily. I'm not foolish enough to believe the economy should be turned around by now, but at the same time he's done a few things that just make me shake my head in disgust.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can we get around from thinking that its just a bunch of right-wing 'blowhards' who think Obama is failing, to some 'supporters' of his who have serious problems with his proposals?

Well I think as soon as you use the word 'fail' then you're going to get criticisms and generalizations like that. Because it is far to early to say and there is a lot on his plate.

I think it's very fair to say that some proposals have not been what was expected and some promises are starting to look like rhetoric, and this is coming from a supporter. Though I said right from the beginning, I wasn't expecting nearly as big things as many were. I know he's just a man, and a politician at that.

But when rhetoric from the other side comes out with words like 'failure' it's going to be labeled as right wing blowhard for sure. Because it's people looking for what they want to see rather than looking at the issue. And usually their not backing it up with anything substantial either.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah cause there was nothing in there for Republicans... Oh an Republicans never put pork in bills either...

What a stupid comment.

It's a problem of the US representative system, which they desperately need to fix, but both sides are equally guilty of abusing it.

As far as passing judgment, I know all the far right wing cannons on here want to get their licks in because of the general Bush trashing but you're going to have to wait a while yet. It's been two months and he's inherited a lot of problems. I already like some of the moves he's made especially internationally and the closing of the prisons, yet I feel he's come up short domestically with stuff like the stimulus bill.

However, if you really wanna turn this into a pissing match (which as I already illustrated, I can find good things and bad things already so I don't see the point) I'll say this. He's already done better than Bush, and he's inherited most of his problems from Bush, so I can't even worry about the comparison.

Put that in your pipe HOZ.

Trying to look smart but failing miserably. Your ad hominem attacks don't make your argument any stronger.

If you've been paying attention to anything in US politics, you would know that the ear marks were steamrolled through by a Democratic majority, even with Obama's "promise" of bipartisanship.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Azure

....or Iran nukes Israel(sure you can blame Obama, as well as the rest of the world)....

I think Iran has a potential to be much bigger mess than Iraq. Everybody was pissed off that Iraq didn't have any WMD, so I guess Iran is not going to dissapoint them once they get enough material to build a nuclear bomb. MAAE reports Iran has 1000kg of that stuff; and over 5000 centrifuges. They had 150 just 2,5 years ago.

I think its a given that Obama's administration won't do anything about it that would matter, and if the Israelis chicken out too, we are looking at a pretty grim picture.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well I think as soon as you use the word 'fail' then you're going to get criticisms and generalizations like that. Because it is far to early to say and there is a lot on his plate.

I think it's very fair to say that some proposals have not been what was expected and some promises are starting to look like rhetoric, and this is coming from a supporter. Though I said right from the beginning, I wasn't expecting nearly as big things as many were. I know he's just a man, and a politician at that.

But when rhetoric from the other side comes out with words like 'failure' it's going to be labeled as right wing blowhard for sure. Because it's people looking for what they want to see rather than looking at the issue. And usually their not backing it up with anything substantial either.

Well, I'm not about to say that he is failing....just that he has made some pretty big mistakes.

Whether he failed or not will be judged years down the road. Years after someone else is elected President.

[fatso]

wow... some very interesting conversation in this thread. Very cool.

However, no one has definitively answered HOZ's question... how much longer 'til we can announce Obama sucks? I personally don't know but I am curious. But I'd like to know when we can officially say 'Obama sucks'. Is it time yet? When will it be?

Maybe the mods can sticky this so HOZ and I can check daily? Maybe it can even be spiced up, like a virtual advent calendar... a kind of "IS IT TODAY?!?" to countdown the days 'til we can make such a glorious declaration!

[Azure]

Saying 'Obama sucks' is a matter of opinion. I don't like his policies, his direction....all of it. So, by my 'opinion' he sucks.

Big difference from saying he's a failure though.

I hated it when people prematurely said Bush failed in Iraq, and always said that it would be years before we would know the true extent of what his policies accomplished.

I'll give Obama the same leverage. Even though foreign and domestic policy are slightly different.

Doesn't mean I have to like what he's doing though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Trying to look smart but failing miserably. Your ad hominem attacks don't make your argument any stronger.

If you've been paying attention to anything in US politics, you would know that the ear marks were steamrolled through by a Democratic majority, even with Obama's "promise" of bipartisanship.

I do know that, but it doesn't change the argument. Many of them were for Republicans. Which is what I said. Also, it's one bill, the Republicans 'steamrolled' their earmarks through during their time in the house as well. Which is what I said as well. I never said the Dems weren't guilty here.

But to suggest one side is more guilty than the other is still a very stupid remark.

EDIT: BTW I wasn't TRYING to look anything. I'm just so sick of the partisan bickering. How can the representatives be expected to be bi-partisan if the observers can't even be? As evidenced by comments like yours. I mentioned right from the start both were guilty, and both have been guilty. It's a structural/organizational problem both sides take advantage of.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I do know that, but it doesn't change the argument. Many of them were for Republicans. Which is what I said. Also, it's one bill, the Republicans 'steamrolled' their earmarks through during their time in the house as well. Which is what I said as well. I never said the Dems weren't guilty here.

But to suggest one side is more guilty than the other is still a very stupid remark.

EDIT: BTW I wasn't TRYING to look anything. I'm just so sick of the partisan bickering. How can the representatives be expected to be bi-partisan if the observers can't even be? As evidenced by comments like yours. I mentioned right from the start both were guilty, and both have been guilty. It's a structural/organizational problem both sides take advantage of.

Sure enough, fiscal conservatism is not too popular these days and it was the Republicans who started this spending mess. No arguments. But I think it is fair to say that historically and philosophically, the Democrats have been very big spenders and supporters of special fiscal interests.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sure enough, fiscal conservatism is not too popular these days and it was the Republicans who started this spending mess. No arguments. But I think it is fair to say that historically and philosophically, the Democrats have been very big spenders and supporters of special fiscal interests.

Well, we'll have to disagree there then. But I'm glad we're not arguing anymore. I think the idea that Republicans are about less government waste and are against big government has proven very conclusively to be a myth. A hollow talking point. Reagan grew the government, and Bush grew the government. Tons of spending, tons of earmarks.

I'm not saying that on this issue the Republicans are any worse than the Democrats, I just think that the idea that Republicans are all about 'small government' and fiscal conservatism has been shown to be pretty false. At least over the last 30 years anyway.

It's the same here in Canada. All governments spend. All governments waste. Somehow the right wing parties have a stigma about them that they don't do it as much, but anyone who has lived in Alberta or follows Federal politics know that all parties do this pretty much the same way.

Probably goes back to very early days when discussions about how much government control there should be was an even bigger topic as the nation was still new and growing. Philosophies that would define a nation were put in place and great thinkers, whether we agree with them or not, first started defining the role of free market economics and their relation to politics and nation building.

But I have to disagree with the right wing ideal that their parties are generally more conservative financially when it comes to modern examples/presidents, prime ministers and parties.

Government in general has become very wasteful on all sides.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I think the idea that Republicans are about less government waste and are against big government has proven very conclusively to be a myth. A hollow talking point.

Yup, once Ron Paul got laughed out of the GOP that myth was pretty much busted.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Azure

Saying 'Obama sucks' is a matter of opinion. I don't like his policies, his direction....all of it. So, by my 'opinion' he sucks.

Big difference from saying he's a failure though.

I hated it when people prematurely said Bush failed in Iraq, and always said that it would be years before we would know the true extent of what his policies accomplished.

I'll give Obama the same leverage. Even though foreign and domestic policy are slightly different.

Doesn't mean I have to like what he's doing though.

His administration has been incredibly ham-handed. From simple diplomacy (25 DVDs to a huge ally and trading partner?) to economics ( Tim Geithner in charge...he didn't pay his taxes because his program didn't prompt him?) to giving speeches without his teleprompter(Ummm....ahhhh, ummmm, ahhh...I would like to thank Obama for inviting us here...oops) he is stumbling badly. There is just so much you can blame on Bush and the GOP before it gets old. His 60 minutes interview was shocking.

Hopefully this is just a short stumble and I really hope his policies work because if they don't we are ALL in a world of hurt.

[Azure]

Don't forget sending a note to 'former' President of France Chirac......talking about working together.

I mean, if we want to talk about stupid mistakes....

[Dan02]

It's much to early to say Obama sucks, but i will suggest his policy of change is a failure. Unless by change he meant waste even more money then the republicans under the guise of being a stimulus package.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sure enough, fiscal conservatism is not too popular these days and it was the Republicans who started this spending mess. No arguments. But I think it is fair to say that historically and philosophically, the Democrats have been very big spenders and supporters of special fiscal interests.

Historically? I guess I'd strongly disagree. Historically and philosophically the difference between the Democrats and Republicans has been less than a hair's breadth when it comes to pork. To believe otherwise is--no offense--naive partisanship.

Pork in the U.S. is a byproduct of lax legislative rules about what can be considered germane enough to put in a bill. Tighten the rules, you do away with pork. Which also means--and this is important--it has nothing to do with the President. Unless the President wants to cripple the government to stop "pork spending" by vetoing everything that comes across his desk until it stops (And I can just imagine the uproar around here if that's what Obama were doing) then it's a legislative matter that can only be solved by Congress.

The President doesn't make laws--and especially doesn't make the rules that govern Congress. Blaming Obama for pork spending in Congress is like blaming Ken King for mixing up the lines during a Flames' game.

As for Azure hitching his wagon to Paul Krugman--I'm gratified to see that. Krugman is probably right, of course. He's a Nobel-Prize winner and knows his stuff. But Azure failed to mention the central reason why Krugman thinks the bailout will fail: it's too small.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, I guess we really are all Keynesians now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

His 60 minutes interview was shocking.

Larf.

Shocking? What was shocking about that interview?


Anyway, I love how this whole argument has been framed. "When can we say he sucks...?", as if people haven't been saying he sucks since before he was even elected.

Labelling him a failure after a two months is pretty silly.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for Azure hitching his wagon to Paul Krugman--I'm gratified to see that. Krugman is probably right, of course. He's a Nobel-Prize winner and knows his stuff. But Azure failed to mention the central reason why Krugman thinks the bailout will fail: it's too small.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, I guess we really are all Keynesians now.

Yes, because simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. That isn't what Krugman is saying at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/op...gman.html?_r=2

It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for Azure hitching his wagon to Paul Krugman--I'm gratified to see that. Krugman is probably right, of course. He's a Nobel-Prize winner and knows his stuff. But Azure failed to mention the central reason why Krugman thinks the bailout will fail: it's too small.

Originally Posted by Paul Krugman

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

Haha. Priceless.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Larf.

Shocking? What was shocking about that interview?


Anyway, I love how this whole argument has been framed. "When can we say he sucks...?", as if people haven't been saying he sucks since before he was even elected.

Labelling him a failure after a two months is pretty silly.

That's me. I said he sucked during his campaign against Hillary.

[Montana Moe]

http://www.badpaintingsofbarackobama.com/