It's time for Obama to GO

[WinePusher]

I believe Obama is probably the most radical president in our nation's history, aside from Woodrow Wilson. Not only is his policy questionable, but his character and personal actions are troubling

-Why did this president bow to ver 5 world leaders
-Why did this president spend over 20 years at a church where the pastor spwed hate speech about America
-Why did this president place a communist and a mao se tung lover in his white house

many republicans have called this president a "Marxist" "Neocommunist" "Facist" "Socialist" "Extremist" I personally agree with every single one of these, but many call this hate speech

So the question is

1) Are the statements aganist Obama (ie: Marxist, Socialist) justifiable"

2) Can anyone justify the government take over of the banks, auto industry, student loan industry and the healthcare industry.

3) Is the media giving obama a free pass? Any rational person would agree the media was very hard on Palin but not so hard on Obama

[Wyvern]

I never said he used his power in this way at Yale and Oxford.

You provided a list of women Clinton supposedly sexually assaulted covering a number of years including when he was still in college in both Yale and Oxford. You stated without differentiating between any of them that he used his position and power to avoid charges. Care to alter the list you gave to actually the pertinent cases? And of course the question must be asked how did he avoid rape charges before he had any political power?

Most of what Obama has done has been in response to actions taken by Bush. Did Obama start two wars

Obama supported the Afghan campaign, as did almost all Democrats, a lesser number of that party supported Iraq.

or cause the economy to collapse?

And Bush didn't do that either. By your reasoning the Democratic congress caused the collapse.

It's simply amazing how you try to give republicans any credit for good things while at the same time try to lay blame on democrats for anything bad. The president is ultimately responsible for the actions taken during his administration. Thus Clinton gets credit for the greatest economic boom in our history and Bush gets the blame for starting two wars and wrecking the economy.

Did Reagan inherit a couple of wars and a collapsed economy?

Reagan didn't have to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, he did inherit an economy arguably worse than ours. The misery index (inflation + unemployment) was almost 20% when he took office, about 6% when he left.

The answer to both questions is no.

Not really.

So you are saying Reagan DID inherit a couple wars and a collapsed economy from Carter?

Are you ready yet to lay blame for the state the economy is in on Bush where it belongs

There is blame for both parties, I put about 80% on the Democrats.

What purpose is there to a president at all if as you seem to see it congress is responsible for everything that happens. It would be like blaming the accounting department at Ford Motor for the introduction of the Edsel.

[East of Eden]

You are again shifting the goal post. You didn't say Obama complained more than Reagan, you said you didn't remember Reagan complaining. My point is simply that your memory is faulty, and I pointed this out earlier as well.

I said, "I don't recall Reagan whining about Carter as Obama classlessly does about Bush." Should have qualified with 'as often'. With Obama it's constant.

As far as Reagan's problems being worse, I say baloney. By what measure, other than inflation, were Reagan's problems worse? Neawrly all economists put the problems in the fall of 2008 as the worst since the great depression. We were facing a melt-down that could have been as bad as what happened subsequent to 1929.

Bush enacted the TARP to help avoid a total melt down.

Exactly, that potential meltdown point didn't even happen when Obama was president.

Obama helped avoid a melt down of the auto industry. That also appears to be working. GM is again profitable and has already paid back the loan portion of the bailout.

Partially done to payoff the UAW. Where do you draw the line? Are taxpayers to be on the hook for every bad decision politically-connected businesses make?

Unemployment is still high, but again, it likely would be much worse without the stimulus. Republicans keep quoting the "higher than 8%" quote. Sorry, everyone under-predicted the gravity of the problem when this quote was made. Comparing what actually happened to this early prognostication is not exactly playing with a fair deck.

I saw a poll that said something like 6% believe the stimulous has helped the economy. Much of it went to payoff Obama's union pals, with about 1% targeted at small businesses which is where most jobs are created. He ought to apply the unused stimulous to the deficit.

Reagan's main problem was high inflation which was predominantly the result of an energy crisis.

And our problem is mainly the result of the housing crisis. So?

The problems he faced were not nearly as endemic or widespread throughout the economy.

False. The Misery Index (Inflation + Unemployment) was 19.33% when Reagan took office, 7.63% when Obama came in, along with MUCH lower interest rates.

He certainly did not face the prospect of a total melt down of the economy.

Obama didn't either, Bush did.

[micatala]

You are again shifting the goal post. You didn't say Obama complained more than Reagan, you said you didn't remember Reagan complaining. My point is simply that your memory is faulty, and I pointed this out earlier as well.

I said, "I don't recall Reagan whining about Carter as Obama classlessly does about Bush." Should have qualified with 'as often'. With Obama it's constant.

That's because in Obama's case it is much more justified.

However, we can leave this issue. I agree Obama still blames Bush for the situation we are in. In my view, bringing information regarding why we are in the situation we are in and accurately assigning blame is not in appropriate. Do you think Obama should take responsbility for things that are not his fault???

As far as Reagan's problems being worse, I say baloney. By what measure, other than inflation, were Reagan's problems worse? Neawrly all economists put the problems in the fall of 2008 as the worst since the great depression. We were facing a melt-down that could have been as bad as what happened subsequent to 1929.

Bush enacted the TARP to help avoid a total melt down.

Exactly, that potential meltdown point didn't even happen when Obama was president.

The meltdown began in Sept/Oct. it continued into the next year. There was still risk of major collapse into 2009.

In addition, the economic mess created by the financial problems most definitely was created prior to Obama, even if some of the affects came later, due to the inherent time lags.

Obama helped avoid a melt down of the auto industry. That also appears to be working. GM is again profitable and has already paid back the loan portion of the bailout.

Partially done to payoff the UAW. Where do you draw the line? Are taxpayers to be on the hook for every bad decision politically-connected businesses make?

Good question. Either choice is bad. We could have let the automakers fail. This would have created significant additional unemployment in the economy and probably slowed the recovery. The key issue is how the failure would affect the overall economy and society. With respect to the banks and the auto industry, the leaders felt not acting would have been worse than acting. I tend to agree.

The next question is how to act to minimize the liability to tax payers. With the auto bail out, I think we did a pretty good job. GM has already paid back the loans, ahead of schedule. If we also make money when the government sells back their shares of GM ownership, then it seems to me it will have been worth it. Now I allow that we need to consider the decision not in light of the ultimate outcome, but on how things looked at the time (just like I said we should do with Iraq). I'll admit at the time the decision was made to being skeptical. Obama felt the risk was worth it, and that we had a reasonable probability of ultimately recouping our investment.

The same with TARP, except in that case, our oversight especially at the outset was not as good as it could have been. Still, Bush took the risk and I think it was a reasonable risk. Obama took over administration of the program and it seems to have worked, albeit with more bumps in the road. Hopefully we will recoup our investment there as well. I know some has been paid back.



As I noted in the other thread, Americans lost something like 17 trillion in net worth form 2007 to 2009. We are going to take a long time to gain that back.

Unemployment is still high, but again, it likely would be much worse without the stimulus. Republicans keep quoting the "higher than 8%" quote. Sorry, everyone under-predicted the gravity of the problem when this quote was made. Comparing what actually happened to this early prognostication is not exactly playing with a fair deck.

I saw a poll that said something like 6% believe the stimulous has helped the economy. Much of it went to payoff Obama's union pals, with about 1% targeted at small businesses which is where most jobs are created. He ought to apply the unused stimulous to the deficit.

What the public believes in a poll does not necessarily accurately reflect reality.

I am all for better administration of the funds. Still, my point that the stimulus helped avoid further job losses is supported by the opinion of a large number of economists. Also, remember a lot of the stimulus money went to tax cuts, including tax cuts for small businesses.


I wonder, how come we should apply the unused stimulus to the deficit and not a repeal of the Bush tax cuts to the deficit?

Reagan's main problem was high inflation which was predominantly the result of an energy crisis.

And our problem is mainly the result of the housing crisis. So?

The problems he faced were not nearly as endemic or widespread throughout the economy.

False. The Misery Index (Inflation + Unemployment) was 19.33% when Reagan took office, 7.63% when Obama came in, along with MUCH lower interest rates.

The misery index is one number and not the number usually used as a significant measure of the economy. Also, I already acknowledged that Reagan faced worse inflation than Obama, and that is a big part of the 19.33% figure. The principal reason for this large inflation was the energy crisis.

THe housing crisis was a significant trigger to the current mess, but the mess itself is much more widespread than what Reagan faced. Job losses have been greater, and the scale of the economic downturn has been greater, and the situation with the financial institutions was much more perilous. Your one number does not trump any of this.


It is also worth noting Reagan took close to three years to get the economy back on track. Obama has had 16 months so far, and despite your protestations to the contrary, has a much bigger hole to get us out of. Even so, we are already on the road to recovery and avoided some very big pitfalls. Obama does not get all the credit for this, but neither should he be blamed for problems which were not of his making.

So far, all the harms you seem to attribute to Obama either have not happened yet, or are arguably necessary trade-offs for avoiding worse catastrophes.

Remember, Reagan engaged in deficit spending to get out of his recession too.

[Slopeshoulder]

If there is a time for President Obama to "GO" it will involve either an election after 4 years or a bathroom more periodically.

If he is defeated next time, he can devote more time to his real mission: being the second coming.

I am sick of the pig ignorant hateful proganda quoted and endorsed in the OP. It is hate speech and approaches incitement. Unless it's applied to people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc; then it's God's Word.

Today's little education moment: one can't be communist and fascist at the same time (they live to hate each other), and Obama is neither.

[chris_brown207]

I love listening to these guys. It would be almost entertaining if they didn't truly believe this stuff...

You got to wonder, is this a symptom of their own previously held biases, or do they truly believe that the Republicans did such a knockout job the last 8 years that they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate???