President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

What the fuck are you talking about? President Bush blew up half of the mountains in Afghanistan and sent our most elite special forces in an attempt to find Bin Laden.

During Clinton's presidency there were SIX attacks by Bin Laden against the U.S. and not one response ... unless you count cutting and running after our soldiers were slaughtered and paraded through the streets of Mogadishu. I think I can name them all. Let's give it a whirl!

1) The 1993 WTC bombing that killed six and injured over 1,000. President Clinton's response was "I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this."

2) The 1993 ambush in Somalia. 19 dead and 84 injured. This was probably the defining moment that emboldened terrorists worldwide that we were susceptible to attack and that casualties would cause us to tuck our tails and run.

3) The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 5 military personnel. President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down. Better get crackin', Billy!

4) The 1996 Khobar Towers that killed 19 and wounded 200 soldiers. Bill Clinton countered with ... nothing. At least he's consistent!!!

5) The 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. "The U.S. State Department thwarted an investigation into two suspects in the Aug. 7. 1998, bombing of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, which had killed more than 250 people, including 12 Americans, according to reports from MSNBC news filed on July 29."

6) The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole which killed 17 and injured 39. I'm gonna be nice and let you guess what president Clinton's response to this attack was.

All 6 of these attacks were attributed to Bin Laden. Hell, in 1996 the Sudanese offered him to us. They had him, were going to expel him and asked the U.S. if they wanted him. The U.S. passed, under president Clinton's direction, because of lack of evidence. We then watched him board a plane and head back to Afghanistan. There were 2 more chances in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, but he passed both times. Sandy Berger admitted having "intelligence indicative of Bin Laden's whereabouts," but Clinton, once again, passed. The last was probably when we knew Bin Laden was in Albania in 2000. Passed again. You have the right idea ... wrong president.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Snopes...run by two left-wingers...not unbiased (on the politics anyways)

[The_Noble_Cause]

Snopes...run by two left-wingers...not unbiased (on the politics anyways)

Proof?
The "two left wingers" rumor was actually started by a (wait for it) debunked right wing chain email. Further proving just how important fair objective watchdog sites like Snopes, Poltifact, and Factcheck are. These sites provide multiple sources, and savage Dems and Repubs alike. You can take the anti-liberal media crusade to cyberspace, but it’s pretty obvious you guys will attack any source whose facts get in the way of a good Republican lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/intern ... xposed.htm

[RossValoryRocks]

Snopes...run by two left-wingers...not unbiased (on the politics anyways)

Proof?
The "two left wingers" rumor was actually started by a (wait for it) debunked right wing chain email. Further proving just how important fair objective watchdog sites like Snopes, Poltifact, and Factcheck are. These sites provide multiple sources, and savage Dems and Repubs alike. You can take the anti-liberal media crusade to cyberspace, but it’s pretty obvious you guys will attack any source whose facts get in the way of a good Republican lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/intern ... xposed.htm

Well color me corrected...on that fact...I looked at the Snopes article...their sources are...some anyways...a bit left leaning...and you would have to agree...if you are as honest as you have shown.

[The_Noble_Cause]

their sources are...some anyways...a bit left leaning...and you would have to agree...if you are as honest as you have shown.

Well, I know NYTimes is percieved as liberal. But aside from their lib editorials and sections like "Arts and Style" that promote gay weddings, I think they cover the news pretty fairly - much like the Wall Street Journal. As for the WPost...they seem to be leaning more right these day than anything. I do agree the source list could be a little more diverse.

[RossValoryRocks]

their sources are...some anyways...a bit left leaning...and you would have to agree...if you are as honest as you have shown.

Well, I know NYTimes is percieved as liberal. But aside from their lib editorials and sections like "Arts and Style" that promote gay weddings, I think they cover the news pretty fairly - much like the Wall Street Journal. As for the WPost...they seem to be leaning more right these day than anything. I do agree the source list could be a little more diverse.

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

I don't regularly read the Post, as I do the NYTimes and WSJ. Other sources have noted the Post's rightward slant, most noticeably on deficit scaremongering, even going so far to let anti-entitlement activist Pete Peterson write an article, without disclosing his ties or running it as an op-ed.

[7 Wishes]

Come on. The Post has been lilting to the right for two decades now, Stu. Progressively, it's becoming a standard-bearer as a GOP establishment as Fox was a decade ago.

[RossValoryRocks]

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

I don't regularly read the Post, as I do the NYTimes and WSJ. Other sources have noted the Post's rightward slant, most noticeably on deficit scaremongering, even going so far to let anti-entitlement activist Pete Peterson write an article, without disclosing his ties or running it as an op-ed.

I don't think there IS a deficit scaremonger...the deficits begun by Bush and worsened under Obama, and from the CBO projections about to go on for the next decade are UNSUSTAINABLE. Next fiscal year we will be 1.4 TRILLION in the hole and we CANNOT continue to print money or rely on China to keep our heads above water. PERIOD.

And that doesn't even TOUCH the unfunded liabilites. We are fucked...all of us...Republican, Democrat, Independent and here we sit arguing over who fucked up the most...it would be almost funny...if it wasn't so sad.

[7 Wishes]

Even the Heritage Foundation believes Bush ownes the 2009 budget:

President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2009 budgets...President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.
Per the APAF:

INHERITING RECKLESSNESS: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Vice President Cheney said in 2002 when pushing for a fresh round of tax cuts. With this attitude in hand, Bush passed on a budgetary nightmare to his successor. Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus. The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger explained, budget deficits swelled under Bush because his supply-side tax policies slashed revenues while failing to deliver strong economic performance.

SIMPLE HONESTY: Obama has already made a departure from the Bush budget legacy by instilling new openness and transparency. Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama will not reject "four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller." In 2005, the Washington Post editorial board called Bush's budget proposal a "farce" for using accounting tricks. Obama's changes include accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on "emergency supplemental" war spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. The result of Obama's openness is a budget that is $2.7 trillion "deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear." As The Wonk Room explained, "that debt was always there. It was just being hidden." "For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception -- a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending," Obama remarked yesterday.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't think there IS a deficit scaremonger...the deficits begun by Bush and worsened under Obama, and from the CBO projections about to go on for the next decade are UNSUSTAINABLE. Next fiscal year we will be 1.4 TRILLION in the hole and we CANNOT continue to print money or rely on China to keep our heads above water. PERIOD.

The bond markets do not reflect this. Japan's debt is currently at 220% of GDP and has no problem borrowing. As for the Post...Peterson is a right wing hack who has been trying to gut the social safety net in good times and bad. Any paper that carries his article, (pretty much a glorified press release), in the news section, has some serious ethical issues.

And that doesn't even TOUCH the unfunded liabilites. We are fucked...all of us...Republican, Democrat, Independent and here we sit arguing over who fucked up the most...it would be almost funny...if it wasn't so sad.

Soc. Security is fixable. Medicare is the big problem.

[RossValoryRocks]

I don't think there IS a deficit scaremonger...the deficits begun by Bush and worsened under Obama, and from the CBO projections about to go on for the next decade are UNSUSTAINABLE. Next fiscal year we will be 1.4 TRILLION in the hole and we CANNOT continue to print money or rely on China to keep our heads above water. PERIOD.

The bond markets do not reflect this. Japan's debt is currently at 220% of GDP and has no problem borrowing. As for the Post...Peterson is a right wing hack who has been trying to gut the social safety net in good times and bad. Any paper that carries his article, (pretty much a glorified press release), in the news section, has some serious ethical issues.

And that doesn't even TOUCH the unfunded liabilites. We are fucked...all of us...Republican, Democrat, Independent and here we sit arguing over who fucked up the most...it would be almost funny...if it wasn't so sad.

Soc. Security is fixable. Medicare is the big problem.

Those are ONLY 2...there are more, such as state pensions for Teachers, government employees at the various governmental levels, and the labor union pensions that WE THE PEOPLE will ultimately be responsible for.

AND Social Security is ONLY fixable IF, and ONLY if, our generation and the ones following behind us will allow the politicians to reduce our benefits or eliminate SS for us, and we continue to pay for the generations in front of us. Which is political suicide, and we all know it.

The problem with safety nets is they have become LIFESTYLES. I actually heard someone last weekend say that almost 2 years of unemployment benefits isn't enough, not because they can't find a job, but because they can't find a job they want to do, or "like". And that attitude is pervasive.

[RossValoryRocks]

Even the Heritage Foundation believes Bush ownes the 2009 budget:

President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2009 budgets...President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.
Per the APAF:

INHERITING RECKLESSNESS: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Vice President Cheney said in 2002 when pushing for a fresh round of tax cuts. With this attitude in hand, Bush passed on a budgetary nightmare to his successor. Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus. The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger explained, budget deficits swelled under Bush because his supply-side tax policies slashed revenues while failing to deliver strong economic performance.

SIMPLE HONESTY: Obama has already made a departure from the Bush budget legacy by instilling new openness and transparency. Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama will not reject "four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller." In 2005, the Washington Post editorial board called Bush's budget proposal a "farce" for using accounting tricks. Obama's changes include accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on "emergency supplemental" war spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. The result of Obama's openness is a budget that is $2.7 trillion "deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear." As The Wonk Room explained, "that debt was always there. It was just being hidden." "For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception -- a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending," Obama remarked yesterday.

WHO CARE WHO MADE THE MESS? Obama and congress aren't doing ANYTHING To fix it.

As for the 2009 thing...well Congress makes up budgets...mostly...so aren't BOTH sides to blame???

[Michigan Girl]

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

I don't regularly read the Post, as I do the NYTimes and WSJ. Other sources have noted the Post's rightward slant, most noticeably on deficit scaremongering, even going so far to let anti-entitlement activist Pete Peterson write an article, without disclosing his ties or running it as an op-ed.

I don't think there IS a deficit scaremonger...the deficits begun by Bush and worsened under Obama, and from the CBO projections about to go on for the next decade are UNSUSTAINABLE. Next fiscal year we will be 1.4 TRILLION in the hole and we CANNOT continue to print money or rely on China to keep our heads above water. PERIOD.

And that doesn't even TOUCH the unfunded liabilites. We are fucked...all of us...Republican, Democrat, Independent and here we sit arguing over who fucked up the most...it would be almost funny...if it wasn't so sad.

You are absolutely correct!!
We've got Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, SS, Unemployment, education grants gallore, and not only does the list go on, we continue adding to it.
While our government is busy giving handouts, we are having to accept handouts to keep our country
from going bankrupt. I'm no genius, but is this not enough to tell us all that sumthing isn't
adding up?!?

The government, just like a good parent, has to learn when to say "NO" ...
that's us folks!! The above listed government services have gotten out of hand because they are
being/have been abused. We have created a society of lazy, money grubbing gimmee. gimmee gluttons!!
These services, born w/very good intentions, have been sucked dry by leeches that have
learned to work the system better than the people who work in the system, which is the hardest most of
these people have ever worked.

Impossible as it may be, I say pull the plug ...start with one of the above listed services, give
everyone so many months warning, pull the plug and move on to the next.

It is not, nor has it ever been, the resposibility of our government to support your kids ...and their kids.
Start taking care of them yourselves. Perhaps they'll take responsibility and quit having so many children.
Eventually, you'll get tired of taking care of them, too and you'll make them get off of their lazy asses
and go to work. Once they know what it's like to earn a paycheck and have half of it stripped from them
before they ever even get to touch it, they'll get pissed too!!

It is not the responsibility of our government to educate your children. Any person, rich or poor,
young or old, black or white, should have an opportunity to receive a good education in order to
make a better life for themselves. These people should be allowed to receive a
low interest student loan, e.g. Sallie Mae, etc. Payable upon graduation, save a few
months to get a job ...at Mickey "D's" if need be, until the doors begin to open. They should also
be given the opportunity to seek employment and work their asses off for tuition. Pull the plug
on all these grants that have been abused to the point of using them to survive for four years or so,
with no education to show for it!! When you have to pay for it yourself, you appreciate
it more and work harder to ensure success!!

We need to put charity back into the homes, churches and communities where it belongs!! It's no
f*cking wonder people are so hateful, abusive and dangerous, they don't need each other any
more. Reaching out is no longer necessary for the people that need it, not when they can
go down to their local welfare office.
Charity and good deeds aren't as plentiful as they used to be because many people simply can't/won't give
from the kindness of their hearts when their money is taken from them via Uncle Sam.
Once the above services no longer exist and our society is forced to stand on its own two feet, we
can start liking and helping each other again!!!

We need many years and many ideas to fix all of the problems we are faced with, financial
and otherwise ...we're going down!!

[donnaplease]

their sources are...some anyways...a bit left leaning...and you would have to agree...if you are as honest as you have shown.

Well, I know NYTimes is percieved as liberal. But aside from their lib editorials and sections like "Arts and Style" that promote gay weddings, I think they cover the news pretty fairly - much like the Wall Street Journal. As for the WPost...they seem to be leaning more right these day than anything. I do agree the source list could be a little more diverse.

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

I'm wondering if our society isn't so jacked up that NO president is going to be seen in a positive light. I think our respect for the office has dwindled so far down the toilet and our ability to freely speak on so many different forums has emboldened us to say some of the most inappropriate and sometimes just flat-out reprehensible things. I cannot begin to imagine my parents' generation saying some of the things that my generation says about our leaders. It's really sad.

[Rick]

their sources are...some anyways...a bit left leaning...and you would have to agree...if you are as honest as you have shown.

Well, I know NYTimes is percieved as liberal. But aside from their lib editorials and sections like "Arts and Style" that promote gay weddings, I think they cover the news pretty fairly - much like the Wall Street Journal. As for the WPost...they seem to be leaning more right these day than anything. I do agree the source list could be a little more diverse.

The Post isn't leaning right...they are just acknowledging that Obama is Bush Part Deux, just from the left...or at least that Federal Government has gone so far astray from what it was designed to be that a majority of the people in the US are JUST FED UP with it all.

I'm wondering if our society isn't so jacked up that NO president is going to be seen in a positive light. I think our respect for the office has dwindled so far down the toilet and our ability to freely speak on so many different forums has emboldened us to say some of the most inappropriate and sometimes just flat-out reprehensible things. I cannot begin to imagine my parents' generation saying some of the things that my generation says about our leaders. It's really sad.

You just...



I couldn't agree more.

[donnaplease]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

[Rick]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

Agreed AGAIN! WTF?

[G.I.Jim]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

Agreed AGAIN! WTF?

That makes two of us.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The bond markets do not reflect this. Japan's debt is currently at 220% of GDP and has no problem borrowing..

The reason for this is two fold: because the savings rate in the Japanese economy is greater than other consumption driven economies . (however this will become threatened as the Japanes baby book generation gets older and starts consuming more and savings less. and secondly, the bond prices are holding up in Japan due to inverstors who are spoked by Eurozone issues are looking for new investment havens.

But the Japanese expeirence acutally shows that govt debt and spending is harmful to an economy. Remember how strong Japan was percieved to be in 1990? (remember when bush 1 pukec on the lap of the Japanese PM) and everyone was going on how weak we look in front of that strong country. Well recession hit there and the Japnanese responded by heavy government spending and stimulus and a coporatist regulatory system- the economy was horribly weak all throughout the 1990's. GDP growh still has not moved beyond 2.0 percent per year and as the national savings rate drops debt will become an issue. Japan is one of the BEST examples why the US Gove has got to drop its faith in stimulus and debt spending

[Rick]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

Agreed AGAIN! WTF?

That makes two of us.

Hey Jimbo!

[portland]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

Agreed AGAIN! WTF?

That makes two of us.

That would be three of us and counting.

[slucero]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

Agreed AGAIN! WTF?

That makes two of us.

That would be three of us and counting.

+4

[WalkInMyShoes]

+4

+5

[RocknRoll]

Make it a +6.

I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised with this last election. Whatever was I thinking!!

Also, great sensible post MG. We've gone too far down the road of the government supporting segments of society, so it won't happen. We'll never get that ideal world where all people actually contribute to society.

[Don]

The bond markets do not reflect this. Japan's debt is currently at 220% of GDP and has no problem borrowing..

The reason for this is two fold: because the savings rate in the Japanese economy is greater than other consumption driven economies . (however this will become threatened as the Japanes baby book generation gets older and starts consuming more and savings less. and secondly, the bond prices are holding up in Japan due to inverstors who are spoked by Eurozone issues are looking for new investment havens.

But the Japanese expeirence acutally shows that govt debt and spending is harmful to an economy. Remember how strong Japan was percieved to be in 1990? (remember when bush 1 pukec on the lap of the Japanese PM) and everyone was going on how weak we look in front of that strong country. Well recession hit there and the Japnanese responded by heavy government spending and stimulus and a coporatist regulatory system- the economy was horribly weak all throughout the 1990's. GDP growh still has not moved beyond 2.0 percent per year and as the national savings rate drops debt will become an issue. Japan is one of the BEST examples why the US Gove has got to drop its faith in stimulus and debt spending

I would say that devaluing the dollar as we did back then is what really took them down a notch. The crash in value of U.S. Business real estate properties, in which the Japanese had major holdings just compounded the problem.

[Rockindeano]

Thanks Rick!

I just saw a brief clip of BO from a speech he gave yesterday. He said "the leader of the Republican party..." and then went on to chuckle as he told the people of something John Boehner said about the financial crisis. Now, whether you agree with Boehner's comment or not (it was some hyperbolic statement about using an atomic bomb to kill an ant ), I think it's inappropriate for BO to use that kind of rhetoric when he's speaking. When he was on the campaign trail, absolutely. But he holds the office of president now, and he's supposed to be the leader over all parties. I'd just like to see that for a change. If he wants to bring the country together, he's gonna have to do a better job of trying to be a uniter, not a divider. And before anyone says "the other guys do it too", I know. But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

I want a leader I can be proud of. Someone that I can point to when showing my kids a really good role model, as a president should be. I hope that BO can become that in the next few years. I'm just not very convinced that it will happen.

You have got to be kidding me? Before you even respond to me, go watch what the "republican leader" said and tell me it's appropriate. Boehner is a complete moron, and if you can come back and tell me Obama responded non presidential like to Boehner's remarks, than I'll shut up. The president has to deal with the republicans. If they are going to say stupid shit like this, why can't Obama expose them for what they are- bubbling idiots without a single good thought. It's no secret Obama won the Democratic Nomination and Presidency based on his eloquent and likeable campaign style speeches. It's no secret Axlerod is going to that card here and using that same style to promote the president's agenda. people like Obama for the most part...on stage, he comes off as likeable. I think it's a great move on their part. Perhaps YOUR party should act like a co existing party of government, and not some snot nosed kids who just say "no" and take their ball home when they don't get what they want. Here's a tip...get an idea. Speak eloquently. Make sense. That'll be a good start.


Oh yeah, I hope no one here is in need of unemployment benefits because the republicans just blocked extensions...again. The party of the people!

[The_Noble_Cause]

But the Japanese expeirence acutally shows that govt debt and spending is harmful to an economy. Remember how strong Japan was percieved to be in 1990? (remember when bush 1 pukec on the lap of the Japanese PM) and everyone was going on how weak we look in front of that strong country. Well recession hit there and the Japnanese responded by heavy government spending and stimulus and a coporatist regulatory system- the economy was horribly weak all throughout the 1990's. GDP growh still has not moved beyond 2.0 percent per year and as the national savings rate drops debt will become an issue. Japan is one of the BEST examples why the US Gove has got to drop its faith in stimulus and debt spending

But didn't they cut their stimulus and try to balance the budget in the late 90s, helping to usher in a second recession ala FDR in 1937?

[The_Noble_Cause]

But the president should be above that fray, don'tcha think?

That sounds nice, but unfortunately it's not realistic in today's ADHD soundbyte media world. Political figures, the Prez or otherwise, have to remain on the offensive. Those that don't, open themselves up to being defined by their opposition, and turned into a walking John Kerry caricature. Harry Truman wasn't afraid of naming names and giving the Republicans hell. Right about now, Obama could use some of that steel nerve. I do think early in his term Obama misguidedly bought his own BS, and thought he could be a transformative post-partisan uniting figure.

[donnaplease]

You have got to be kidding me? Before you even respond to me, go watch what the "republican leader" said and tell me it's appropriate. Boehner is a complete moron, and if you can come back and tell me Obama responded non presidential like to Boehner's remarks, than I'll shut up. The president has to deal with the republicans. If they are going to say stupid shit like this, why can't Obama expose them for what they are- bubbling idiots without a single good thought. It's no secret Obama won the Democratic Nomination and Presidency based on his eloquent and likeable campaign style speeches. It's no secret Axlerod is going to that card here and using that same style to promote the president's agenda. people like Obama for the most part...on stage, he comes off as likeable. I think it's a great move on their part. Perhaps YOUR party should act like a co existing party of government, and not some snot nosed kids who just say "no" and take their ball home when they don't get what they want. Here's a tip...get an idea. Speak eloquently. Make sense. That'll be a good start.


Oh yeah, I hope no one here is in need of unemployment benefits because the republicans just blocked extensions...again. The party of the people!

Obviously at this point you're the only one who feels this way, but if that's your stance, go for it. Obama can do anything he damned well pleases (as he's shown on more than one occasion), it doesn't mean it's the right thing for our country as a whole. I disagree about him winning because of a likeability factor. He won the presidency simply because #1) he's a black man and got a huge response from the black community, #2) people didn't care for John McCain and/or Sarah Palin as an alternative, and #3) the democrats did an effective job in their anti-Bush rhetoric.

When you make comments like you did above, you make it clear that you care less about the country than you do about a political agenda.

Regarding the unemployment benefits, I heard that on the radio this morning and it worries me more than a little. I didn't hear the reasoning behind it though. Personally, I think there needs to be a two-pronged offensive here. We need to figure out how to get the jobs back for these people, not just continue to send them a check. When it comes to being able to put food on the table though, we gotta step up.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I disagree about him winning because of a likeability factor. He won the presidency simply because #1) he's a black man and got a huge response from the black community, #2) people didn't care for John McCain and/or Sarah Palin as an alternative, and #3) the democrats did an effective job in their anti-Bush rhetoric.

You forgot one.
4) The GOP fucked up BIG time. Bush was even persona non grata at the GOP's presidential convention that year. In his hail mary pass desperation, McCain even started running TV ads with him looking into camera saying: "My fellow Americans, the past few years haven't gone so well have they?"
I mean, how much more deperate can you get?