Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:
Obama gives great speeches , something the public really need i guess.

Hitler did the same for his people back then.

reds8n wrote: I need to emoticon more clearly.



Whilst I'm here..... read earlier that it is, apparently, considered rude in America to discuss Religion and/or Politics generally. Is that right ?

It is considered 1. socially rude; 2.blindingly stupid to talk religion and to a lesser extent politics at work. You never know who disagrees with you-even privately. there were serious viewpoint issues that arose because a former boss made the mistake of thinking everyone believed his rightwing dross (ooh I finally get to say dross).

You would be surprised who complained (Shuma and Sebster would be very surprised).

Mattlov wrote:I vote a particularly big NAY at this point, simply because he really hasn't done anything other than raise the national debt to levels that simply cannot be paid off.

It actual raised the highest percentage (in relation to GDP) during WW2 and Clinton actually had spent more than Obama. When Mr. Bush was in charge we had no prayer of paying it off.

I'll give him a NAY. Mainly for his appointments and spending. Timmy Geitner, the new GM guy, and Sonia Sotomayor raise red flags to me, but I'm a middle class white guy so my opinion matters not. I also understand the argument that government spending should boost the economy, but I don't forsee myself from benefitting from any of the new programs for a while. He also entered office at a terrible time so I understand that he's trying to make the tastiest crap sandwiche with the crap he was provided.

The positives: I think that his presence has somewhat boosted our role in the world (I could care less about our role, but that's me). His ambition and attitude is admirable. I might not agree with his principles or agenda, but he is pursuing it with a ferver (sp) that is inspiring (if that's your thing ). He also keeps himself fit. I don't trust overweight preachers or politicians and at least he's got that going for him.

Mattlov wrote:I vote a particularly big NAY at this point, simply because he really hasn't done anything other than raise the national debt to levels that simply cannot be paid off.

The only president since Carter to see a reduction to the national debt was Clinton and you hung him out to dry for poking a fat lass. There is one person to thank for the world economic crisis, Bush Jnr.

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the US national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the US national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush's presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush's tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Even in boom times he drove the national debt up with massive military spending, no infrastructure improvements that Obama is seeking.

As a Brit, I can honestly say, since my nation is in the habit of joining the US in it's military jaunts into the sand and being so closely economically tied we might as well be married, that I am really thankful to no longer have that imbecile Bush at the steering wheel.

Obama seems a well educated and thoughtful individual committed to the rebuilding of the economy and actually learning the lessons needed. His 'record borrowing' is the direct result of the legacy of disaster he has inherited. Really we are talking about a wait and see, it's far too early to understand how well his rescue will pay off and remind ourselves it is a rescue from the mess he was handed.

As to socialised health care, the women of the UK have free cervical smear tests and without them my mother would be dead. A state healthsystem would benefit the US greatly. The problem is ensuring it, like welfare or state education or child support payments etc are not abused, as is often a problem in the UK, creating such a system now, with the lessons learnt from our system would be a good call.

mcfly wrote:Also, his idea that he can get North Korea to give up nuclear weapons is stupid. They're not gonna, and neither is Iran. What he's saying is crazy talk.

Because no country would ever surrender nuclear weapons in order to return to the international community?



Also, does anyone else remember all the Republicans saying that you couldn't judge the Bush administration after eight years, that it would take decades to know if his policies were effective. Apparently history works faster with Democrats, because people seem able to judge him 100 days in.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I vote a particularly big NAY at this point, simply because he really hasn't done anything other than raise the national debt to levels that simply cannot be paid off.

The only president since Carter to see a reduction to the national debt was Clinton and you hung him out to dry for poking a fat lass. There is one person to thank for the world economic crisis, Bush Jnr.

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the US national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the US national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush's presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush's tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Even in boom times he drove the national debt up with massive military spending, no infrastructure improvements that Obama is seeking.

As a Brit, I can honestly say, since my nation is in the habit of joining the US in it's military jaunts into the sand and being so closely economically tied we might as well be married, that I am really thankful to no longer have that imbecile Bush at the steering wheel.

Obama seems a well educated and thoughtful individual committed to the rebuilding of the economy and actually learning the lessons needed. His 'record borrowing' is the direct result of the legacy of disaster he has inherited. Really we are talking about a wait and see, it's far too early to understand how well his rescue will pay off and remind ourselves it is a rescue from the mess he was handed.

I literally couln't have put that better myself, I heartidly agree.

youngblood wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I vote a particularly big NAY at this point, simply because he really hasn't done anything other than raise the national debt to levels that simply cannot be paid off.

It actual raised the highest percentage (in relation to GDP) during WW2 and Clinton actually had spent more than Obama. When Mr. Bush was in charge we had no prayer of paying it off.

Clinton got the budget into positive figures.

Bush kicked public finances in the nads with a tax handout to rich people and a very expensive war. He also did the massive public bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Goldman Sachs (though arguably these were necessary.)

It's ridiculous and factually incorrect to blame Obama for the current budget situation.

Bullocks as you English would say. Obama's budget is MULTIPLES of the previous year's budget. Outside of WWII thats never happened before.

So when the world tilts into the 2nd recession/stagflation in 2010-2011 due can I blame Obama then, or is it still Bush's fault?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5428026/Barack-Obama-should-stop-apologising-for-America.html

Frazzled wrote:It is considered 1. socially rude; 2.blindingly stupid to talk religion and to a lesser extent politics at work. You never know who disagrees with you-even privately. there were serious viewpoint issues that arose because a former boss made the mistake of thinking everyone believed his rightwing dross (ooh I finally get to say dross).

You would be surprised who complained (Shuma and Sebster would be very surprised).

Nah, I've never thought of you buying into the nutjob far right of Limbaugh and co. You're pretty committed, but it's to classical conservativism. Still wrong, of course , but wrong in a far more rational way than the far right.

What's that Op Ed got to do with economics?

It's just a bit of right-wing ranting.

The title is yea of nay KK. Thats a nay perspective.

EDIT: Plus I was able to say "bullocks." Bullocks and dross in one day-excelsior!

True.

Frazzled wrote:Bullocks as you English would say. Obama's budget is MULTIPLES of the previous year's budget. Outside of WWII thats never happened before.

So when the world tilts into the 2nd recession/stagflation in 2010-2011 due can I blame Obama then, or is it still Bush's fault?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5428026/Barack-Obama-should-stop-apologising-for-America.html

The Obama deficit spending is a direct result of the current recession. It is a plan to inject funds into an economy that is shrinking as a result of the financial meltdown. Attempting to maintain a balanced budget while in recession has historical precedent, and its a disastrous precedent. You know this, everyone knows this. Criticising Obama for following basic economic policy is lazy politics.

Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on tax cuts and a balanced by budget (via the magic of the Laffer curve and planned cuts in expenditure). Despite this, he ran increasing deficits, with spending increases primarily in operational areas with no long term benefit to the economy. His fiscal control was woeful.

That said, the meltdown wasn't Bush' fault. It certainly had nothing to do with his spending policies. It was the result of decades of deregulation proposed and supported by both parties. And a serious decline in the culture of major financial institutions. And Greenspan.

You have to look at spending vs. GDP though. Obviously you can spend loads more if your country is making loads. Clinton spent tons vs. GDP. At the start of Bush's first term, spending was very lower vs. GDP. Obama is spending loads vs. GDP right now. While he's not necessarily to blame for that (as we were already in the falling into recession when he moved into office) his budget is gigantic.

Mattlov wrote:

The only impression of him I have is someone who needs a teleprompter to tell him what he should say to the moronic American sheep to make them think he is a great President.

Least this one can read the teleprompter though so you are making progress.

Mr. Frazzled, much as I hate to disapoint it is in fact "Bollocks" we say, "bullocks" being livestock.

.... Malfred complained about your boss !?

Has Obama even done anything yet?

Seriously, up here we hear NOTHING of him. We might get a clip of "Obama may be considering blahblahblah" but never actually doing anything.

sebster wrote:
That said, the meltdown wasn't Bush' fault. It certainly had nothing to do with his spending policies. It was the result of decades of deregulation proposed and supported by both parties. And a serious decline in the culture of major financial institutions. And Greenspan.

I partially agree with you sebster. I would say that it wasn't ALL Bush's fault. I have to say that as a conservative I was sorely dissapointed in Bush and it was partly his fault, he should have seen it coming and tried to do more. The current problem was instigated by the mortgage meltdown, which you can blame partially on republicans and democrats for deregulation. But also you can blame a big part for legislation passed by democrats to force fannie and freddie to give high risk loans to low income americans (mainly african americans)-insert Obama. Obama was the 2nd or 3rd highest paid senator from the mortgage industry. Chris Dodd (democrat) was the highest.

So Obama is not entirely innocent here.


GG

bill saw a surplus of money because he slashed the military. Sat on his arrogant ass having is sucked... 50$ says he had sex on the table in the oval office....

Basic training was pointing a stick at a target and saying BANG.


A bit of Bush's spending was trying to grow the military to pre bill size... Bush sill spent too much for me, he not as spend happy as a lib... but almost.



I really don’t want "free" healthcare, I can’t afford it.... I like the plan I got, and the service I get with it...

@ the guy who almost had someone die from strep last year.... go to wall greens, or Myer (whatever place that is), or somewhere with a doc in the box.... It was $50 for me to get a doc visit, a strep test, AND the antibiotics for strep. And took less then an hour.

I am in a situation where I will most likely have to have my tonsils taken out (have had strep 3 times within a 1 year period).... if I had free healthcare I would be told to live with it. But I live in America and I WORK instead of bitching about how I deserve free stuff.






NAY.... but its Bush's fault

Envy89 wrote:bill saw a surplus of money because he slashed the military. Sat on his arrogant ass having is sucked... 50$ says he had sex on the table in the oval office....

Bill saw a surplus of money for a number of reasons. Most of them relating to the deregulation of the financial sector. The cuts made with respect to the military were largely irrelevant to the overall budget because they were offset by increase in the area of social security and medicare.

Envy89 wrote:
Basic training was pointing a stick at a target and saying BANG.

That's pretty much what basic training has always been. That's why its called basic training.

Envy89 wrote:
A bit of Bush's spending was trying to grow the military to pre bill size... Bush sill spent too much for me, he not as spend happy as a lib... but almost.

Bush's spending had nothing to do with increasing the size of the military. Almost all of his budgetary expenditures were in the area of platform fabrication. Primarily because Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz still think Star Wars was a good idea.

Envy89 wrote:
But I live in America and I WORK instead of bitching about how I deserve free stuff.

Aren't you the petulant child. You already made the point that universal health care isn't free, so this little rant doesn't even make sense.

Envy89 wrote:
NAY.... but its Bush's fault

So projected budgetary outcomes can be blamed for current financial woes? Are you ignorant of causation, or do you have a time machine?

Frazzled wrote:Bullocks as you English would say. Obama's budget is MULTIPLES of the previous year's budget. Outside of WWII thats never happened before.

So when the world tilts into the 2nd recession/stagflation in 2010-2011 due can I blame Obama then, or is it still Bush's fault?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5428026/Barack-Obama-should-stop-apologising-for-America.html

A) that is the telegraph, the most right wing of our 'intelligent' newspapers and ever a staunch republican ally.

B) the author as cited at the bottom of that page: Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. - Seriously, if you wanted hardcore right wing, short of digging up Ribbentrop's grave, you'd be hard pressed to find more so than that.

The article was so partisan it is rendered useless, not news but a political broadcast for the Republicans/Conservatives, it offers no great insight, instead deriding the idea that opening negotiations with nations viewed as hostile is worthwhile but providing no 'other solution'.

Obama's budgets are going to be big, he has to use a large amount of cash to launch the initiatives capable of turning around the disaster occurring. Some medicines are not pleasant, there isn't any quick or painless solution to the crisis the economy is in, that's why it's a crisis. What a shame George W Bush jnr didn't remember that prevention is the best cure.

I'd like to add that one of the primary reasons Obama's budget is so much larger then Bush's is that Obama is not lying about how much we are actually spending. Remember, the Iraq war was never included in the budget under Bush, it was payed for through emergency supplemental bills every year, which kept it out of the main budget. The only reason Bush's atrocious budgets looked remotely palatable is because the Bush administration used every accounting trick they knew to make their deficit spending look smaller then it actually was.

youngblood wrote:You have to look at spending vs. GDP though. Obviously you can spend loads more if your country is making loads. Clinton spent tons vs. GDP. At the start of Bush's first term, spending was very lower vs. GDP. Obama is spending loads vs. GDP right now. While he's not necessarily to blame for that (as we were already in the falling into recession when he moved into office) his budget is gigantic.

At the start of Bush' first term, he had inherited Clinton's budget and Clinton's surplus. The reason tax revenues fell relative to GDP and spending during the Bush admin is because Bush had a policy to cut taxes (believing according to the miracle of the Laffer curve tax revenues would increase even more - they don't, and no-one outside of the Republican party ever thought they would).

Obama's deficit is partly, as you recognise, a result of falling revenues due to the recession. But the increase in spending is a deliberate policy to increase economic activity during recession. It's basic economic policy, probably after demand and supply it's the most well known, accepted piece of economics there is.

Envy89 wrote:I really don’t want "free" healthcare, I can’t afford it.... I like the plan I got, and the service I get with it...

@ the guy who almost had someone die from strep last year.... go to wall greens, or Myer (whatever place that is), or somewhere with a doc in the box.... It was $50 for me to get a doc visit, a strep test, AND the antibiotics for strep. And took less then an hour.

I am in a situation where I will most likely have to have my tonsils taken out (have had strep 3 times within a 1 year period).... if I had free healthcare I would be told to live with it.

This is nonsense. It is nonsense because people in countries with national healthcare remove tonsils. I'm a guy who lives in such a country, and know people who've had their tonsils out. So why you decided that if a national program were instituted there would be no tonsil removal is bizarre.

It is also nonsense because you're assuming private insurance will disappear. Many countries run a hybrid scheme, where people can take out private insurance to gain a level of private healthcare above and beyond the guaranteed base level of quality.

So please, stop the 'no tonsil thing for me in socialism'. It's a very silly claim.

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:Has Obama even done anything yet?

Seriously, up here we hear NOTHING of him. We might get a clip of "Obama may be considering blahblahblah" but never actually doing anything.

Conservatives are in favour of less government. They should be pleased.