Obama Failure Thread Part VI

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Location:
    The 720, y'all
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Country:
    United States
    It would surely be a simple matter to defeat him if he were up for reelection, no?


  2. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    Not to mention Barack's worse at foreign policy than Jimmy, isn't he?
  3. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Jimmy really could have used a Hillary
  4. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Location:
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    How so?


  5. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Hilldog would have throat punched the Ayatollah.
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Location:
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    I think Clinton has done a decent job as Secretary of State, but the reason I asked the question was because I was curious as to what you think she would've brought to the table that wasn't already there. If it's hawkishness, as your response implies, Carter already had that with Brzezinski as his NSC chief. For example, the failed raid to free the hostages was pushed by Brzezinski despite Cyrus Vance's protestations (you may recall this leading to Vance's resignation). In fact, it seems that Carter more often than not sided with the more hawkish Brzezinski than he did with Vance.

    Again, I have little to no problem with the job Hillary has done. But I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed response as to what sort of policies she would've pushed versus those that Brzezinski and Vance were pushing.
    Matrim55, GiuseppeSignori and Chris M. repped this.
  7. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    This is not consistent with your "turn the other cheek" approach to AQ attacks including 9/11. ;):D
  8. Minnman

    Minnman Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2000
    Location:
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    About Obama's job creation legacy, remember when articles like this were popping up during the campaign about Romney's claim that he'd create 12 million jobs in his first term?

    So are the estimates that, regardless of who is president, the economy will produce somewhere in that number of jobs over the next four years now considered bogus? What did I miss?

    Timing is everything, and by willing re-election, odds are that Obama's timing as regards continued and excellerating economic recovery are good, as well.
  9. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    The Republicans have had it tough campaigning against Obama on the economy, since the standard Republican argument is that the best thing that government can do for the economy is to do nothing. Which is pretty much what Obama has done since his first year of stimulus.

    All part of Obama's long plan. Fake being a Republican in the first term so that they have nothing to campaign against, then come out like a progressive for the second term.
  10. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Anderson would have gotten my vote in 1980 no matter what.
  11. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Nothing? QEII and QEIII. Massive deficit spending. The problem hasn't been doing nothing, it has been more of the same. Throw in some tax hikes and a massive effort expand low income entitlements and it's no wonder we are mired in a maliase.
  12. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Location:
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    United States
    alright abe vigoda ... what would you have done...it is January 2009 and you are now POTUS (shuddered as I typed that)...what are you doing? here is your chance...we get it...you don't like Obama, and you don't believe in Keynesian economics...what are you doing...lay out your plan...wow us
    Boloni86 repped this.
  13. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Funny you ask, ChrisM and I discussed this in detail in 2009. We both agreed stimulus was in order and we debated what would be appropriate Keynesian stimulus. We agreed on a lot, but the eventual stimulus package resembled little of what we discussed. I wanted stimulus that adhered to "successful Keynesian guidelines"…. quick, targeted, and with an end date. That is not what we got. Pelosi and Reid used the crisis to push through a pet projects that were never good ideas. The stimulus was also used to temporarily bolster State and Local governments.

    So now, 4 years after the crisis you throw some insults my way and suggest we make the same mistakes all over again.
  14. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Location:
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    United States
    Great so you do believe in Keynes and just think it was implemented poorly...which I do agree with...it should have been 2x-3x larger... the stimulus we got helped stop the bleeding and put us on the road to recovery but didn't have enough gas to keep lifting public sector spending to fill the spending gap until the economy fully righted...
  15. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Yay! Free money for everybody!
  16. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Location:
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    United States
    And to suggest it was exclusively Pelosi and Reid watering the bill down is another example of selective memory when it comes to the environment at the time...both parties had a solid hand in creating a lackluster bill that didn't go far enough
  17. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    1. I believe there are some merits to Keynesian stimulus in times of recession.

    2. If you believe it was poorly implemented why would you want it to be 2x or 3x larger?

    3. This is not what economic recovery is supposed to look like.

    4. The economic signs going forward aren't encouraging (I hope I am wrong).
  18. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Location:
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    United States
    --
    two separate thoughts...it should have been larger and not included Blue Dog and GOP elements (which were needed to get it passed)

    You are right...it was stalled by the GOP trying to submarine the economy to win an election, and a stimulus that was too small to help the economy recover...and your assertion trhat propping up of state and local was a bad idea is a major flaw in your thinking
  19. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The problem is it wasn't Keynesian. Only the Dems could spend nearly a trillion dollars and not see economic benefit.
  20. MattR

    MattR Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Right, the republicans would have cut a trillion dollars from rich people's taxes, and then

    ???

    Recovery!
  21. Minnman

    Minnman Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2000
    Location:
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Yes, Republican economic theory is a lot like the second step in the equation below:
    [​IMG]
  22. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Location:
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Country:
    United States
    except that it did have very measurable and definite benefits to the economy...only partisan hacks argue otherwise
  23. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Location:
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Just more evidence that Vfish's and Stanger's critique of the president's economic record is counterfactual.
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...en-explains-why-our-recovery-has-been-so-weak

    To put it another way, everything I (and ratdog and Chris M and JohnR and, well everyone who lives in a fact based world, i.e., liberals) have been saying is right and everything you have been saying is wrong.
    GiuseppeSignori and Kobranzilla repped this.
  24. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    That's what tax cuts are.
    crazypete13, Chris M., taosjohn and 2 others repped this.
  25. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    taos,nm
    No, no, that money was earned, and the economy can tell the difference.

    When they spend those dollars instead of the government spending them, they have magic redwhiteandblue sparkles on them, and the institutions that recieve them know to hire more of the unemployed'n'stuff.
    crazypete13, stanger, Funkfoot and 3 others repped this.

Share This Page