Becoming Barack Obama

[starseed]

Well maybe my belief is centered around the fact that his biggest opponents are becoming less and less of a threat as time passes. I think he will start to win over social conservatives with him preaching about how he was converted over to the pro-life side, and how he is a staunch supporter of gun ownership. He will probably have most of his support come from the moderate conservatives though, and thats probably the direction the Republican officials will want to take.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Hilarious... So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't...

Hilarious... Because that's what I said...

I am saying this: his policies will not help the economy (they are more of what actually caused the trouble plus ton of waste on top), most likely he will delay the recovery but the economy (market) will improve anyway and he'll get credit for that. Which is fine, that's how politics works.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Hilarious... Because that's what I said...

I am saying this: his policies will not help the economy (they are more of what actually caused the trouble plus ton of waste on top), most likely he will delay the recovery but the economy (market) will improve anyway and he'll get credit for that. Which is fine, that's how politics works.

It seems to me the recovery has already begun. Now whether this is just an aberration and we will plummet more is a different question. I love all the right wingers who think there knowledge of economics is superior to a group of advisors who is made up of the brightest minds in there field. I know there are different theories of economics out there and they are subscribing to a certain one (spend your way out), but this is why I hate extremists on both sides. Close mindedness. "Oh if something good comes out of their term it was obviously in spite of what they did, because otherwise I might have to cede that maybe they were doing the right thing."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

You think the religious right is checking a box that they will see as marked Mormon?

Probably not--but the GOP establishment probably (unless they're idiots) understand that the "Bibles, Babies and Guns" strategy is a loser for them in 2012. What they need is someone who can run on a pro-business, pro-growth, supply-side economics platform, leaving the "morality" issues behind. Nominating Palin would be pandering to the religious right. It also guarantees a landslide Obama victory regardless of what happens over the next 4 years.

Romney at least gives them a shot. I still think it's a long shot, but that's better than no shot at all.

I do think it's weird that people are jumping all over Obama after just 5 months in which he's actually done a lot of stuff, not all of which has clear ramifications just yet. I think the jury is very much still out--and anyone who is intellectually honest is willing to take a wait-and-see approach on his presidency for at least the first two years.

But the dumbest argument of all is "well, he hasn't changed everything and ushered in a new era of American world dominance and economic prosperity in only 5 months, therefore he's garbage." The only reason to follow that line of thinking is if you want him to fail.

The fact is, most people who voted for him weren't hoping for a massive sea-change in America's political culture. They were just hoping for somebody smart and competent for a change. Early indications are that these voters are satisfied--Obama's poll numbers are still way above what Bush's OR Clinton's were at this stage of their presidencies (Clinton had a very rocky start--most people don't remember that).

But the truth is, Obama's not really a reformer--and if you've been paying attention to what he says, you know that already. He's a compromiser, someone who tries to find workable solutions in the muddy middle-ground. Sometimes that's appropriate--other times (read: Health Care) it's a terrible idea. But that's who he is--and all he ever pretended to be.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Hilarious... Because that's what I said...

I am saying this: his policies will not help the economy (they are more of what actually caused the trouble plus ton of waste on top), most likely he will delay the recovery but the economy (market) will improve anyway and he'll get credit for that. Which is fine, that's how politics works.

Wait.... you'll have to explain to me how government overspending caused the recession. I've heard a lot of talk about sub-prime mortgages, deregulation of the banking industry, credit default swaps, over-leveraged banks and unregulated exotic investment instruments. Is that all nonsense? The big bugbear is actually government spending?

Because if you have proof of that assertion, that's a real game-changer.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

You think the religious right is checking a box that they will see as marked Mormon?

Yeah I agree, no way protestant sects get over this mormon thing.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It seems to me the recovery has already begun. Now whether this is just an aberration and we will plummet more is a different question. I love all the right wingers who think there knowledge of economics is superior to a group of advisors who is made up of the brightest minds in there field. I know there are different theories of economics out there and they are subscribing to a certain one (spend your way out), but this is why I hate extremists on both sides. Close mindedness. "Oh if something good comes out of their term it was obviously in spite of what they did, because otherwise I might have to cede that maybe they were doing the right thing."

I can as easily say that a group of the brighest minds (including Greenspan) screwed up royally in the first place. That's not an argument.

If the theory is wrong, it doesn't matter how many subscribe to the theory. Or how "bright" they are.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It seems to me the recovery has already begun. Now whether this is just an aberration and we will plummet more is a different question. I love all the right wingers who think there knowledge of economics is superior to a group of advisors who is made up of the brightest minds in there field. I know there are different theories of economics out there and they are subscribing to a certain one (spend your way out), but this is why I hate extremists on both sides. Close mindedness. "Oh if something good comes out of their term it was obviously in spite of what they did, because otherwise I might have to cede that maybe they were doing the right thing."

True. I catch myself doing it all the time. Its a part of human nature.

In a large capitalist economy, these upswings and downswings are inevitable. The only thing the government can do is provide regulations beforehand that will eventually limit the damage. What the debate should be about is how much we should be adding to our long term debts to alleviate some short term pain, and whether it should be in the form of government projects and funding of projects or less expensive and less involved tax incentives. Instead, the debate degenerates into trivial matters and stupid partisan rhetoric, and the inability to work together politically, just makes for worse outcomes.

But that seems to be more true in the states than in Canada.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah I agree, no way protestant sects get over this mormon thing.

That's probably true. But evangelicals still only make up something like 11% (IIRC--glad to be corrected by someone less lazy than me) of the voting-age population, and they will never vote democratic in large numbers. They'll either vote Republican or not at all, meaning that low overall turnout allows the GOP to pick up that slack elsewhere. Cuban immigrants in Florida, let's say--or Roosevelt Republicans in New England, rural NY, etc. etc.

Romney is at least a much better choice than Palin. Of course, Huckabee will be in the mix too, at least that's my guess. Palin will probably be a distant memory by the time that primaries start.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wait.... you'll have to explain to me how government overspending caused the recession. I've heard a lot of talk about sub-prime mortgages, deregulation of the banking industry, credit default swaps, over-leveraged banks and unregulated exotic investment instruments. Is that all nonsense? The big bugbear is actually government spending?

Because if you have proof of that assertion, that's a real game-changer.

Living above your means and hoarding debt like there's no tomorrow (because as Keynesians say, the debt "doesn't matter" because "we owe it to ourselves." ouch).

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Living above your means and hoarding debt like there's no tomorrow (because as Keynesians say, the debt "doesn't matter" because "we owe it to ourselves." ouch).

Well that answers everything...


Except the question he asked D=

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Can you direct me to the magical store in which overnight solutions are sold? I'd love one of those for some of my problems too.

Typical BS from people who stray to the extremes on either side, avoid reality and jump on any possible issue as if it's the whole story.

Sure.

But you deny the 'fact' that Obama was the one selling those overnight solutions.

If you want to say that all those problems aren't as easy to solve as Obama made them out to be, in the mantra of 'hope and change'....then you are effectively calling him a liar and a deceiver.

But then again, he is a politician, and he lies too and deceives people for a living.

I'm just curious if he would win the election today when it is becoming more and more evident that he has done nothing but talk.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

I agree, I don't see who the GOP is going to trot out that is going to bring in the votes. Of course there's a few years for that to change, but at the moment the great hope is who? Palin? The 'I quit' strategy alone will be tough for her to overcome. Outside of that who's really pushing for that spot? I haven't paid much attention to that scene lately, but I can't think of anyone who seems to be a real threat to shift the middle.

Palin is shooting herself in to the foot on a daily basis.

Best case scenario? Democrat executive branch, Republican legislative branch.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with Obama being in the Whitehouse for 8 years if the Republicans control the legislative branch. They could probably get a lot done.

But having both branches under the control of one party is a recipe for disaster. We've seen it many times before.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It seems to me the recovery has already begun. Now whether this is just an aberration and we will plummet more is a different question. I love all the right wingers who think there knowledge of economics is superior to a group of advisors who is made up of the brightest minds in there field. I know there are different theories of economics out there and they are subscribing to a certain one (spend your way out), but this is why I hate extremists on both sides. Close mindedness. "Oh if something good comes out of their term it was obviously in spite of what they did, because otherwise I might have to cede that maybe they were doing the right thing."

Obama's own advisers are the ones who have written papers saying that the more government involvement in the economy, the lower the GDP.

They even had numbers that I can't recall right now. Something to do with taxation.

Maybe he should start listening to them instead of the other idiots who think taxing people MORE will solve anything.

[mikey_the_redneck]

The U.S.A. would be in alot better shape had they not dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act during the Clinton adminsitration.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Well that answers everything...


Except the question he asked D=

Actually I think it does.

Obama is trying to fix the economy by spending money he doesn't have; when the economy got into trouble because it was spending money it didn't have.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Actually I think it does.

Obama is trying to fix the economy by spending money he doesn't have; when the economy got into trouble because it was spending money it didn't have.

Um I am pretty sure the economy got into trouble because of bank lending practices. I've never read one article stating the reason we got into trouble was because of gov't spending.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Actually I think it does.

Obama is trying to fix the economy by spending money he doesn't have; when the economy got into trouble because it was spending money it didn't have.

Which doesn't answer his question on how it started the recession.

You're not very good at this whole debate dealie, are you?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Which doesn't answer his question on how it started the recession.

You're not very good at this whole debate dealie, are you?

Maybe it would help you to understand if I drew you a comic book?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Maybe it would help you to understand if I drew you a comic book?

A comic would be a good place for your ideas on the recession since they're made up and utter fiction.

Get on that.