Is Obama making sense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter valentino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have said many times that it is not a correct policy, but it is not an illogical policy. Economically speaking, should his policy work? Yes, but only in an ideal world. We do not live in ideal world. No one economic policy is more proper or well reasoned than another, they are just reasoned oppositely. Neither side is anywhere close to the ideal situation because one does not exist. That is the problem; Americans can not live the way we live and expect to be in the black. Let me put it this way: his idea that investment in the future does make a considerable amount of sense, but we are currently at a point where his investments may not catch up to our debt with its interest rate. His policy lacks the cut to spending, which is why his policy is heavily flawed.
Yes they do. I never said that they are moral or do their job correctly, but I don’t think that we can discredit their economic opinion because some of them struggle with greed.

It most certainly does lean quite far to the left. I would agree. Which is the problem with America. I agree that we can not wait that long, but that does not make it a conspiracy. It is a race, kind of, to them. Will our investments pay off before countries will stop borrowing us money? That is the question. Republicans say no. Democrats say yes. I don’t think it is that black an white. America currently runs as if everything is black and white; it is too extreme. Grey can be a beautiful color.
We don’t live in an ideal world so if Obama is able to continue it will be disasterous for America.And the poor and middle class who he’s allways saying he is looking out for will be hurt the most.Reps.in the past are just as much to blame as Dems.But the reps.now know the mess we’re in and they know things have to be changed.Bush was a terrible president.Even close to Obama.Greed is not an issue.Capitalism is a conspiricacy.Socialism is a conspiricy.We can’t wait at all.Everyday our debt gets bigger and if we don;t start paying it down (and I don’t mean breaking even)the interest on the debt grows.Tell me one investment Obama has which will pay off in 2yrs.?10yrs?And how big of a payoff will it be?$1b?50b?We need a trillion or 4trillion.
 
We don’t live in an ideal world so if Obama is able to continue it will be disasterous for America.And the poor and middle class who he’s allways saying he is looking out for will be hurt the most.Reps.in the past are just as much to blame as Dems.But the reps.now know the mess we’re in and they know things have to be changed.Bush was a terrible president.Even close to Obama.Greed is not an issue.Capitalism is a conspiricacy.Socialism is a conspiricy.We can’t wait at all.Everyday our debt gets bigger and if we don;t start paying it down (and I don’t mean breaking even)the interest on the debt grows.Tell me one investment Obama has which will pay off in 2yrs.?10yrs?And how big of a payoff will it be?$1b?50b?We need a trillion or 4trillion.
Yes, which is why his policy is seriously flawed. It is, but the principle in and of itself is not illogical (it makes sense), nor is it a conspiracy. The only problem is he is wagering our entire economy on being right. I don’t think he will be, but investing in the future does make sense. It should work. We will be in this situation again in two years and it will be the same debate. It all depends on where other countries draw the line. He is wagering that our investments will pay off before they stop giving us money.

One can make sense without being correct. It is just a gamble.
 
Well it is a conspiracy in a way.There is more of a capatilistic approach to government and there is a more socialistic way to how a nation should be run.All the people in Obama’s administration think that America should be socialistic.Remember socialist isn’t a dirty word.But its an ideology.But its faulty.where we stand now is that its not working that’s why were on the brink right now.We’ve(American’s)have been trying socialism for many years now and we see where its gotten us.We mustn’t continue in our errors and make things even worse.Obama’s green energy is fine.But it won’t pay off for years.And we can’t wait that long.
Come on now , valentino our country has been a mixed economy now for many years and Americans have been quite alright with it , do you think it would be smart to start tossing the babe out with the bath water now as this new segment of the Republican has a fancy to do. Just think now, it must be a balance, both parties working together for the common good of all of us.However, it is going to take intelligent men and women…grown-ups working together , compromising. Peace, Carlan
 
“Super Congress”? Trillions in automatically-generated cuts if they don’t reach an agreement (trust me, they won’t)? How is any of this constitutional?

From What’s wrong with the debt ceiling deal?
The debt ceiling will be increased by $900 billion immediately, in exchange for future Washington-style cuts. These cuts will only reduce a baseline increase in spending next year, and will not cut current spending. The debt will not be reduced, in fact, it will reach the new debt ceiling within two years! Here’s how.

Assume this year’s spending was $3.5T with a $1.5T deficit. The baseline increase for next year’s budget will be 8%, because of automatic increases in entitlement programs, so that spending will increase by $280B to $3.78T, with the deficit growing $120B to $1.57T in 2012.

With only $2.1T in cuts in the budget over 10 years, next year’s cut will only be $210B, but the deficit will still increase by $1,570B – $210B or an additional $1.36T. It will reach the new debt ceiling in less than two years!

This deal doesn’t change the way government does business. The deficit will increase to almost $17T right after the 2012 elections, using the baseline increase of 8% each year in the spending from the previous year. Where are the cuts?

This debt ceiling deal also does not prevent a downgrade in the country’s AAA debt rating which required a minimum of $4T, according to the rating agencies. Also, anytime during the 10 years, Congress and the President could eliminate the cuts and raise taxes.

The debt deal also gives tremendous power to a 12-member super committee that will recommend the second half of the debt reduction over the 10 year period.

This committee could increase taxes to reduce the deficit, not just make cuts. Not only that, if conservatives don’t agree to the tax hikes, then the so-called trigger would automatically cut our national security by $600 billion and cut Medicare, so more threats are looming on the horizon.

Obama could use this committee to raise the taxes he didn’t get in the debt deal and if the GOP opposes them, could claim the GOP would rather hurt our soldiers and seniors than raise taxes on “millionaires, billionaires or corporate jet owners.”

The American people weren’t looking for a debt deal or a compromise — they’re looking for a solution to the problem. The problem we have is a deficit of about $1.5 trillion and debt at over $14 trillion. And with this debt deal moving forward, we ensure that we are going to have over $17 trillion in debt in less than two years without solving the problem, which is cutting government spending.
 
Yes, which is why his policy is seriously flawed. It is, but the principle in and of itself is not illogical (it makes sense), nor is it a conspiracy. The only problem is he is wagering our entire economy on being right. I don’t think he will be, but investing in the future does make sense. It should work. We will be in this situation again in two years and it will be the same debate. It all depends on where other countries draw the line. He is wagering that our investments will pay off before they stop giving us money.

One can make sense without being correct. It is just a gamble.
well it kinda what your definition of a conspiricy is.All of Obama’s people want socialism to work.Im not saying they are out to destroy America.It just their political philosophy that is faulty.They keep trying to make it work but it can’t.They know that they lost in this latest debt ceiling.they had to lose because they know up until now everything they’ve tried has failed.But that won’t stop them from continuing trying to make their system work.No they will keep inventing new angles that they will tell the American people(which sound so logical and fair and honest)that will work but will only get us in a worse mess.the biggest asset Obama has is his ability to seem fair,caring of all people,and that he wants to do what is best for all people.People vote for him because they like him.He so convincing and seemingly trustworthy.Tell me one investment that is paying off or will pay off?And remember these investment cost us money.Here is a current list of investments Obama wants.Infrastructure.Its going to cost billions and how is that going to show our country a profit?High speed rail.More billions.More toward education and keep Pell grants,head start programs.Do we wait 10yrs for these kids to graduate then come up with some great new discovery that all the world will pay us for?Green energy and electric cars.When will windmills be able to produce more electricity and cheaper than the electricty we have now?20yrs?How many people are going to buy these electric cars?There expensive and nobody like em.Where is are big profits?
 
well it kinda what your definition of a conspiricy is.All of Obama’s people want socialism to work.Im not saying they are out to destroy America.It just their political philosophy that is faulty.They keep trying to make it work but it can’t.They know that they lost in this latest debt ceiling.they had to lose because they know up until now everything they’ve tried has failed.But that won’t stop them from continuing trying to make their system work.No they will keep inventing new angles that they will tell the American people(which sound so logical and fair and honest)that will work but will only get us in a worse mess.the biggest asset Obama has is his ability to seem fair,caring of all people,and that he wants to do what is best for all people.People vote for him because they like him.He so convincing and seemingly trustworthy.Tell me one investment that is paying off or will pay off?And remember these investment cost us money.Here is a current list of investments Obama wants.Infrastructure.Its going to cost billions and how is that going to show our country a profit?High speed rail.More billions.More toward education and keep Pell grants,head start programs.Do we wait 10yrs for these kids to graduate then come up with some great new discovery that all the world will pay us for?Green energy and electric cars.When will windmills be able to produce more electricity and cheaper than the electricty we have now?20yrs?How many people are going to buy these electric cars?There expensive and nobody like em.Where is are big profits?
Oh okay, yeah I agree with you now on the conspiracy, if that is your definition of conspiracy. I define conspiracy as a secret plan to do something harmful. Yeah, I agree he is trying to push his far left policies. I thought you were trying to say that he is trying to destroy America for his own personal gain and to the benefit of his party.

Yeah I don’t agree with his policy, but his ideas make sense, they just might not work. See what I am saying? Like investing in the future is necessary and does make sense, but in our current economic sate it might not work.
 
Oh okay, yeah I agree with you now on the conspiracy, if that is your definition of conspiracy. I define conspiracy as a secret plan to do something harmful. Yeah, I agree he is trying to push his far left policies. I thought you were trying to say that he is trying to destroy America for his own personal gain and to the benefit of his party.

Yeah I don’t agree with his policy, but his ideas make sense, they just might not work. See what I am saying? Like investing in the future is necessary and does make sense, but in our current economic sate it might not work.
there are things which government should invest in that states or private enterprize can’t handle as well.Not all government programs are bad.I don’t think Obama wants to destroy America.He may want us to be on the same economic standing as every other country and he may think we are too rich,too high and mighty,and we are too big headed.He may be wanting something like a one world government.I really don’t know.But one thing is for sure.He doesn’t sense the danger were in and he wants a second term as president.And another thing.he knows he has to keep his socialistic view of America if he wants to be reelected because if he denounces his view he will be seen as surrendering to reps.and it would be terribly hard to be reelected because he would lose his base and people generally don’t like a president who can sway with the breeze.I do believe though that he is willing to risk America(even if he knew he was wrong)to be reelected.For a couple of reasons.first if America goes into a great Depression it won’t hurt him and his family.and two he will be able to find a way to pass the blame to someone else and still save face.He’s not afraid of going out in disgrace.
 
Obama has hired more of his political friends (includning 32 czars) than any other President. He has appointed only those of his socialist political leanings. - His appointees are not the experts some would have us believe. And he only listens to his friends rather than getting the big picture from all sides.
The USA is 35% deeper in debt in the 2 1/2 years that Obama has been in office. - So much for his economic decisions and those of his “advisors”.

Obama has studied and follows Marksist, Saul Alinsky - "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.
crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Obama’s background is merely that of another lawyer, who’s limited very experience is that of a ‘community organizer’. His political beliefs are dangerous. And they violate the principle of “subsidiarity”.
 
Obama’s wizard’s have the same socialistic view of how our society should be as he does.Its got nothing to do with numbers.Im sorry but I think you are taking too much of what you hear about Obama politics as sound reasoning.
I find Mr. Obama an offensive individual. I do not care for his style, arrogance or attitude. I do not believe he is competent to hold the office of President of the United States and think that he is not fulfilling his Constitutional duties (e.g., his decision not to enforrce DOMA).

Having said that, he doesn’t pass any law or spend any money or raise any taxes. That is all done by the Congress of the United States and therein lies the root cause of our economic distress. All Mr. Obama can do is enforce the laws (at least those he chooses to enforce) passed by Congress. The situation of Mr. Obama in the White House, coupled with the band of panderers in the Congress resulted in the Tea Party. Politicians have a short memory. They have forgotten what happened in the last election, but I think they’ll get a reminder shortly.

I like to picture Mr. Obama in a Jimmy Carteresque position in, say, January 2013, retired in Chicago and working happily to build Habitat homes and activc as a spokesman for children’s exercise programs and organic home gardening. He’d be good at that.
 
I find Mr. Obama an offensive individual. I do not care for his style, arrogance or attitude. I do not believe he is competent to hold the office of President of the United States and think that he is not fulfilling his Constitutional duties (e.g., his decision not to enforrce DOMA).

Having said that, he doesn’t pass any law or spend any money or raise any taxes. That is all done by the Congress of the United States and therein lies the root cause of our economic distress. All Mr. Obama can do is enforce the laws (at least those he chooses to enforce) passed by Congress. The situation of Mr. Obama in the White House, coupled with the band of panderers in the Congress resulted in the Tea Party. Politicians have a short memory. They have forgotten what happened in the last election, but I think they’ll get a reminder shortly.

I like to picture Mr. Obama in a Jimmy Carteresque position in, say, January 2013, retired in Chicago and working happily to build Habitat homes and activc as a spokesman for children’s exercise programs and organic home gardening. He’d be good at that.
I’m curious as to who you think was competent to hold the office of President in, say, the past thrity years since the Reagan era? Was Clinton, for example, competent in your view? Also, if you believe Obama would be good as an ex-President in a similar capacity to that of Jimmy Carter, what do you believe George W. Bush, for example, would be good at? Or do you think he was at his best as President?
 
I’m curious as to who you think was competent to hold the office of President in, say, the past thrity years since the Reagan era? Was Clinton, for example, competent in your view? Also, if you believe Obama would be good as an ex-President in a similar capacity to that of Jimmy Carter, what do you believe George W. Bush, for example, would be good at? Or do you think he was at his best as President?
Hmmm, makes me wonder what George W is doing these days, he does’nt seem to get around much anymore… Peace, Carlan
 
Yes, which is why his policy is seriously flawed. It is, but the principle in and of itself is not illogical (it makes sense), nor is it a conspiracy. The only problem is he is wagering our entire economy on being right. I don’t think he will be, but investing in the future does make sense. It should work. We will be in this situation again in two years and it will be the same debate. It all depends on where other countries draw the line. He is wagering that our investments will pay off before they stop giving us money.

One can make sense without being correct. It is just a gamble.
The problem is the policy he is following has been followed in the past by other nations - all failed or fell to wayside.

While “investing in the future” is a great bumper sticker slogan there has to be some substance to back it. The massive investments in “alternative” energy will be a bust. Wind energy is extremely costly and provides little return on the investment. Solar energy holds promise but few dollars are flowing in that direction. Coal is still the cheapest and the US has centuries of use stored within its borders - but the president had declared he will bankrupt those that attempt to expand its use. Coal and the tar sands can also be converted to liquid petroleum products (Germany supplied its needs with it in WW2 and the South Africa has done the same), but it is “discouraged” with the permit issuance and limiting the ability to actually harvest the tar sands (over of century of fuel in the tar sands alone).

The other issue is education sounds like a great investment - until you look at the facts. The US is not “targeting” its education dollars. Student loans are made just as readily to those that want to study chemistry as those that want to study theatre. With the expansion of the Pell Grants and student loans college expanded their budgets - but not in the education areas. “Administrators” now outnumber instructors on most campuses; the cost of an education has out paced all areas of the economy - including health care. The US now has over 300,000 college educated waitresses and nearly 70% of graduation seniors in 2010 returned home to live with their parents due to lack of good paying jobs.
.
 
The problem is the policy he is following has been followed in the past by other nations - all failed or fell to wayside.

While “investing in the future” is a great bumper sticker slogan there has to be some substance to back it. The massive investments in “alternative” energy will be a bust. Wind energy is extremely costly and provides little return on the investment. Solar energy holds promise but few dollars are flowing in that direction. Coal is still the cheapest and the US has centuries of use stored within its borders - but the president had declared he will bankrupt those that attempt to expand its use. Coal and the tar sands can also be converted to liquid petroleum products (Germany supplied its needs with it in WW2 and the South Africa has done the same), but it is “discouraged” with the permit issuance and limiting the ability to actually harvest the tar sands (over of century of fuel in the tar sands alone).

The other issue is education sounds like a great investment - until you look at the facts. The US is not “targeting” its education dollars. Student loans are made just as readily to those that want to study chemistry as those that want to study theatre. With the expansion of the Pell Grants and student loans college expanded their budgets - but not in the education areas. “Administrators” now outnumber instructors on most campuses; the cost of an education has out paced all areas of the economy - including health care. The US now has over 300,000 college educated waitresses and nearly 70% of graduation seniors in 2010 returned home to live with their parents due to lack of good paying jobs.
.
I do not agree with his policy. I have said this. My point is that his that it is not all smoke and mirrors.

As for education, I agree that the cost of college is out of control. I am in college. Trust me, I am well aware. But I have also witnessed the pell grants work the way they should, kind of. The problem I have with pell grants is that the people who receive them undoubtably need them more than I do, but I think they give them too much. For example, my friend had worse grades than me in High School, but still got a full-ride to college. She undoubtably needed most of the money, but my parents won’t be supporting me in college or after I graduate either, so I will be in debt, while she has none, even if we graduated with the same degrees. Pell grants are too “all or nothing” for me, but they are necessary for many deserving people to go to college. What do you mean by targeting pell grants? You can’t say: “you must major in Biology or we won’t give you money.” That is the same, to many, as saying: “You must major in Biology or you can’t go to college.” I only used Biology as an example.🙂
 
I’m curious as to who you think was competent to hold the office of President in, say, the past thrity years since the Reagan era? Was Clinton, for example, competent in your view? Also, if you believe Obama would be good as an ex-President in a similar capacity to that of Jimmy Carter, what do you believe George W. Bush, for example, would be good at? Or do you think he was at his best as President?
Actually, I think Bush was a bobblehead. The Reagan era ended in 1988, 23 years ago so I would say he was competent, certainly the country fared well. I think CLinton was a marvelous communicator and fairly competent, if socially troublesome to me vis a vis abortion. But see, here’s the deal, Clinton had experence governing, as did Bush and Reagan. Mr. Obama has nothing to fall backl on except his long pauses during his highly vaunted oratory. He can drag out the word “and” for seconds as he waits for the teleprompter to change gears.

George Bush is doing fine at what he does, hanging out on his ranch.

What do you think of the selective enforcement of Federal Law by Mr. Obama? Do you have any criticisms of him?
 
Come on now , valentino our country has been a mixed economy now for many years and Americans have been quite alright with it , do you think it would be smart to start tossing the babe out with the bath water now as this new segment of the Republican has a fancy to do. Just think now, it must be a balance, both parties working together for the common good of all of us.However, it is going to take intelligent men and women…grown-ups working together , compromising. Peace, Carlan
I have to admit that people like Gingrich is too radical and it would lead to society anarchy.I know we have to be temporate in our approach to recovery.yes,I agree with most of what you are saying.Im really a bit befuddled as to exactly we should do.All i know for sure is that we do have some pretty difficult problems.
 
Actually, I think Bush was a bobblehead. The Reagan era ended in 1988, 23 years ago so I would say he was competent, certainly the country fared well. I think CLinton was a marvelous communicator and fairly competent, if socially troublesome to me vis a vis abortion. But see, here’s the deal, Clinton had experence governing, as did Bush and Reagan. Mr. Obama has nothing to fall backl on except his long pauses during his highly vaunted oratory. He can drag out the word “and” for seconds as he waits for the teleprompter to change gears.

George Bush is doing fine at what he does, hanging out on his ranch.

What do you think of the selective enforcement of Federal Law by Mr. Obama? Do you have any criticisms of him?
I think Clinton was very competent albeit hardly a role model by any stretch of the imagination. In my view, the Monica Lewinsky affair was an impeachable offense since–as Ross Perot made clear–he dishonored the office of President. Still, I supported his liberal policies, if not so much his later shift to the center to appease Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. I also believe Papa Bush was far more competent than Junior (who never really wanted to be President), although I didn’t agree with much of his politics even as a Moderate Republican. Carter, on the other hand, was an incompetent leader and should never have been elected President in the first place. Despite his governing experience (which Carter also had), I always thought of Reagan as a real-life Peter Sellers in the film “Being There.” How he managed to get re-elected I will never understand. Apparently he was a nice person, as are Jimmy and Bush II, but the leader of the free world? True, he played a vital role in the fall of communism, and one must give him and Gorbachev equal credit for that–as one must give Carter credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty–but with regard to domestic policy, there was a lot wanting. As to Obama, I’m not sure whether his lack of experience is the key to our economic woes or whether his predecessor dug a hole so deep that anyone would have had just as much difficulty digging us out. But are we even going in the right direction? So, as you see, I owe no allegiance to Obama. The question for me now is, which of the Republican candidates can do better in reviving our economy? Bachmann? You may support her on the social issues, but what are her qualifications–aside from her training as a lawyer–on the economic and foreign policy fronts? Ron Paul? A libertarian who must be applauded for speaking his mind. But what is his plan for getting us out of this mess? Perhaps Romney, but how good was he in helping his own state? I don’t know enough about Rick Perry; but he is somewhat too socially conservative for my taste, unless he has some great plan for job growth apart from complete industrial privatization. At this point, I need a better Republican candidate to vote against Obama, not merely a Republican philosophy or ideology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top