Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

will it be the fixes that President Bush put through with the original TARP that fixed the economy?

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know, and I don't care. I don't have a political ax to grind. But, it looks to me like YOU do... Bush was a spender - a PROLIFIGATE spender. He didn't represent YOUR right wing persuasions. Why, on earth, are you supporting him, unless it IS political with you??

excon

PS> If you read my posts, you'll see that I really don't think the economy is fixed. You'll see that, although TARP saved the immediate collapse, I'm not sure that when the cure shows up in the numbers (down the road about a year from now), it isn't going to be WORSE than the fix.

excon

Quote:

---

None taken. I don't agree, but I'd like to be proven wrong by fact.

---

I generally agree with your point. However there are facts that point to Bush being part of the problem . Overall he failed to use his veto pen and in fact initiated some of the biggest spending increases in the last decade. The revenues being generated by his tax cuts were keeping the deficit in line sort of... it never rose to above $458 billion.

But last year during the autumn banking crisis he intiated polices that first Excon condemned ,but now supports since Obama grabbed the mantle .
Overall the new IOUs written since Sept. of last year are $1,000,000,000,000 and growing .
Today there will be a new Treasury statement released and this number may be(and probably will be ) revised upward .Not only that ,but given the revenue influx the government gets in April the numbers will be most likely more optomistic than reality . We will learn that by June 1st of this year spending has already exceeded the $1 Trillion mark and is rising .Both Presidents shared in this policy. In fact ,Obama kept much of the Bush Treasury team into his administration.

Excon is correct about the inflationary train wreck coming. Already we are having problems selling Treasuries . The interest rates will be raised to give greater incentive for the Chinese to invest in them. President Obama forecasts a $18 trillion plus debt by 2014 due to his experiment . The total US GDP for 2008 was $14 trillion . So sometime in his 2nd term we will have a bigger debt than our annual GDP . That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.

---

Hello again, tom:

Agreed...

But, now the discussion has transcended the local stuff and moved on to the bigger stage, where it actually should be.. Because the problems we're having NOW can be attributed to Nixon, in addition to Ronny Ray Gun. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm blaming Republicans.. I'm not, but they DO seem to be the most culpable.. (Ok, yes I am.)

He closed the gold window, and untied the dollar from gold. From that time forward, the government could PRINT money, and IS. Before that, they couldn't.

The debt, that is unsustainable by anyone's measure, is sustainable if you hyperinflate. Inflation is GOOD for borrowers and BAD for lenders. That way, we pay back the debt with very cheap dollars. Bernanke thinks he can control inflation with interest rates. He's wrong. The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.

excon

PS> You may wonder why I call him Ronny Ray Gun. It's because I was attending a seminar in San Francisco in 1968, when a group of demonstrators from San Francisco State were GASSED from helicopters, with NO consideration for the average citizen going about their business... I was one of those citizens..

Did being gassed by a Republican sway my political thoughts?? You betcha it did!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Elliot,
Wouldn't the same results happen regardless of who took office after the Bush mess?

---

No, the same results would not have happened.

1) The national debt would not have increased by 7% in 6 months, because no other president would have been stupid enough to borrow that much money to support that much useless cr@p in their overbloated stimulus bill.

2) Similarly, the budget deficit would not have increased by over 400% due to increased spending.

3) Unemployment would be LOWER, not higher, because any other president would have known not to increase taxes and regulatory expenses to businesses during a recession.

So the simple answer is NO, the result would not have been the same under ANY president, because any other president would be more interested in HEALING the economy rather than using the recession as an excuse to take over the economy.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So the simple answer is NO

---

Unless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Saph:

The economy was about to go into the dumper. He stopped that. I guess you missed it. Now, it's just going to be bad instead of disasterous.

You're right, though, in that it remains to be seen if what Obama did (and what we do NOW) actually fixes it for the LONG term. Health care reform is part of the fix. If we don't do THAT, Obama's fixes won't fix squat.

excon

---

Right, This is kind of like when EMS gets to the scene of the accident.

FIRST Obama had to stop the profusion of blood that would cause imminent death.
After you stop the bleeding, the best way you know how, then you address the other wounds. Now we may still have a bad situation, but death is avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

---

They sure seemed germain enough when people were pointing at the unemployment figures in 2002 and 2003 when Bush was in power. Then they were VERY germain. Remember how people (yourself included, if I remember correctly, excon) were arguing that the Bush tax cuts were a failure because we weren't seeing decreased unemployment immediately?

Quote:

---

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

---

Inflation IS INCREASING. Food prices are up. Gas prices are up. Housing values are down (which is the same as saying that mortgage payments have increased in relation to home values). We are seeing inflation in every sector of the economy.

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

• May 2008 0.84%
  June 2008 1.01%
  July 2008 0.53%
  August 2008 -0.40%
  September 2008 -0.14%
  October 2008 -1.01%
  November 2008 -1.92%
  December 2008 -1.03%
  January 2009 0.44%
  February 2009 0.50%
  March 2009 0.24%
  April 2009 0.25%

After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Unless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

---

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Even Obama is seeing what a massive mess he's made. Even HE has figured out that no other president would have been this massively screwed up vis-à-vis the economy. That's why he announced "paygo budgeting" as one of his major initiatives for the near future. AFTER creating the largest budget deficit in history, after creating a national debt larger than all other presidents in history combined, he's finally finding religion with regard to "paygo".

Obama screwed up, NK. He knows it. The leaders of other countries are laughing at him about it. (And you thought that Bush was an international embarrassment.) The polls are beginning to show it... the people may like Obama, but their support for his policies is falling massively. That's why he's trying some massive spin control with paygo.

So I stand by my answer. We predicted this mess. We told you that nobody would be as bad as this guy for the economy. We told you that no other president would have made these mistakes... not even Hillary. And now you are trying to spin it so as to say that we don't know what any other president would have done. Well, yes we do.

All we have to do is take the candidates at their word. Obama TOLD us he was going to do this stuff and he's keeping his campaign promisses. McCain, Romney, Hillary, and all the other candidates said that they would not, and I believe them... because they never did it or tried to push for it before while in office.

There's a reason that Obama was considered the most liberal Senator in Congress... it's called a voting record, and it says a lot about a candidate. NO OTHER CANDIDATE was as liberal as Obama. Ergo, no other candidate would have taken the incredibly stupid actions that Obama has taken because of ideology. And the results would therefore have been different from what we are seeing today.

Yes, we do know, and no you don't need to psychic powers to figure it out.

Elliot

Ex You won't find me taking up Nixon's defense regarding his fiscal policies . What is the difference between wage and price controls that he initiated and the various attempts by the new President to do the same ? None .

We already know that polices that go back even further (Johnson ) were the cause of the bad medicine that Nixon Ford and Carter tried.

Quote:

---

The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.

---

Why stop there ? The government created the Fed . To prevent the next depression . Well ,they failed to do that in the 1930s and they have failed to control the business cycle any time since. When there is gvt. Interference in the marktplace does it really matter how the currency is pegged ?

In the whole history of humans an agreed international gold standard only lasted for a whole 50 years between 1871-1914 .

You think the gvt. Couldn't manipulate that ? Under your theory ,if the public is allowed to demand payment in gold from the state, at a fixed exchange rate between the currency and gold, then the state cannot print up too much currency . If it does, people will trade in their dollars for gold. To keep from losing its gold reserves, the government will have to stop creating new money.

But ;The money was pegged to gold during Roosevelt's terms and he just refused Americans access to gold. In essence the gold stopped being "our gold " by 1933 .It became property of the government . The convertability contract was violated.

Nixon violated the contract again in 1971 when he changed it from a fixed rate of exchange to a floating rate. But he did that after the price of gold on the world market had already begun to fluctuate and a fixed price was unsustainable .Even before ;by 1968 only central banks could get gold at the then artificial discount rate of $35 /oz .

Gold fluctuates like any other commodity today so if we are pegging our currency on commodities maybe it should be coal ,something we have in abundance. WE do not have an abundance of gold and we would be basing our currency on a product mined primarily in places such as China, South Africa and Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred,

---

You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?

---

UM, didn't this start with the housing market? The Bush administration warned of Fannie and Freddie problems 17 times and Democrats not only blocked any reform measures, they whined and protested that they were just fine.

The Dems campaigned - falsely - in 2006 when they won control of Congress that they were going to be fiscally responsible (Paygo I believe it was and which Obama is now claiming as his own policy after spending us even further into oblivion). They didn't rein in anything, they immediately proceeded to investigation after investigation instead.

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.

---

I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

I guess paygo is what I heard Obama say just last night, I think, that we can't spend a dollar unless we are collecting a dollar, or something like that.

So. Does he mean that he is going to cut spending to match income, or raise taxes to support the profligate policies that he has so far promoted?

The new flat tax approaches. Whatever you have, just send it to the IRS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Elliot

---

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are OK. We are without doubt in one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

• May 2008 0.84%
  June 2008 1.01%
  July 2008 0.53%
  August 2008 -0.40%
  September 2008 -0.14%
  October 2008 -1.01%
  November 2008 -1.92%
  December 2008 -1.03%
  January 2009 0.44%
  February 2009 0.50%
  March 2009 0.24%
  April 2009 0.25%

After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

---

What about the massive inflation in May, June and July last year. Who's to blame for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are ok. We are without doubt in the one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why?? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

---

Even though I agree that the fault doenot lie with obama as of now, but if the economy is still in a recession in 3 to 4 years then that's adifferent story. As for the Australian economy you can't compare it to the u.s, you can't compare apples and oranges.

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. If the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. It's a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. if the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. Its a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

---

I think you are right and I think that "deregulation" is our downfall.

I see banking without regulation like this.
It's like the students will not behave if the teacher leaves the room. Or you certainly can't depend on it. SO... either teacher stays in the room or assigns someone else to oversee the classroom to assure that all he// doesn't break lose.

The problem I see with Obama is the DIRECTION he is taking on most everything.

When we get the PROOF that he is wrong, it may be a tad late.

He is either a spinmeister, or has a good one to call on. On jobs, admisnistrations are rated on how many jobs created and the unemployment rate. Obama is selling the "jobs saved" index. A figure that he can pull out of thin air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

---

But they didn't. Neither did Bush during his final year.

Yes, the beginning of the bailout mess began with Bush. He set the precedent, and as a result, he ended his presidency with a huge budget deficit.

But that is where his responsibility ends.

OBAMA then took control and in less than 6 months he quadrupled the budget deficit, increased the national debt, is increasing inflation massively, has nationalized the 7% of the total economy (GDP) by taking over the auto-manufacture sector of the economy, and is poised to nationalize another 13% of the total economy (GDP) with nationalized healthcare. THIS IS OBAMA'S STUFF, not Bush's. (And I haven't even talked about taking over AIG and the largest banks in the country.)

I place responsibility for Bush's actions on Bush. But I place responsibility for Obama's actions with Obama. I don't try to claim that Obama is doing what "Bush's economy" forced him to do.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

I think you are right and i think that "deregulation" is our downfall.

I see banking without regulation like this.
It's like the students will not behave if the teacher leaves the room. Or you certainly can't depend on it. SO...either teacher stays in the room or assigns someone else to oversee the classroom to assure that all he// doesn't break lose.

---

How many times must we go over this?

Freddie, Fannie, and the banks WERE REGULATED.

The problem is that they were regulated according to the wishes of ACORN and the liberal Democrats (a la Barney Frank, et al)

Are you obtuse or just in denial?

The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that aren't true."--attributed to Mark Twain

The word deregulation has been used as shorthand to describe the repeal or easing of particular rules. To the extent there was a heyday of such deregulation, it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It was at this time that economists--and consumer activists--began to question many longstanding restrictions on financial services.

Major deregulation of financial services was the repeal of the Depression-era prohibition on banks engaging in the securities business. The ban was formally ended by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which followed a series of decisions by regulators easing its impact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars?? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

excon

---

That is bovine manure. If congress and Obama were to stop payroll taxes for 3 months, you will see

1] reasonable people using their hard earned money to pay down debt. They may be able to avoid foreclosure or pay off outstanding credit card debt.

2] some may invest in a business, or start a new business, or keep employees instead of having to lay them off, or offer more benefits, or hire new employees, or expand their business

3] some may stimulate the economy with more purchases

4] some may get into more debt

5] some may be able to pay for health insurance

ETC.




It would happen within the first weeks. This would help the economy more than anything thus done by this gov.

Right now the US gov is borrowing future tax revenue to spend. It is spending power that gives the politicians [ both R and D ] their power. It is also very inefficient. We only have to look at GM and Chrysler to see that the billions in taxpayor money went to waste.

The taxpayor knows how to spend THEIR money the best, but the politicians can't have that because they will have to relinquish power. Also when the taxpayor has to go back to an after tax take home pay, there will be more citizen participation.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

That is bovine manure. If congress and Obama were to stop payroll taxes for 3 months, you will see

1] reasonable people using their hard earned money to pay down debt. They may be able to avoid foreclosure or pay off outstanding credit card debt.

2] some may invest in a business, or start a new business, or keep employees instead of having to lay them off, or offer more benefits, or hire new employees, or expand their business

3] some may stimulate the economy with more purchases

4] some may get into more debt

5] some may be able to pay for health insurance

ETC.




it would happen within the first weeks. This would help the economy more than anything thus done by this gov.

Right now the US gov is borrowing future tax revenue to spend. It is spending power that gives the politicians [ both R and D ] their power. It is also very inefficient. We only have to look at GM and Chrysler to see that the billions in taxpayor money went to waste.

The taxpayor knows how to spend THEIR money the best, but the politicians can't have that because they will have to relinquish power. Also when the taxpayor has to go back to an after tax take home pay, there will be more citizen participation.

If this was true, the stimulus checks should have revived the economy,but it didnt, it was too little too late then and it will be very late and too little now


G&P

---

If this was true, the stimulus checks should have revived the economy,but it didn't, it was too little too late then and it will be very late and too little now

You mean this:


Stimulus Checks | Stimulus Check | When Will I Receive My Stimulus Check | Taxes

Quote:

---

An average of $13 per person per paycheck

---

That is pathetic, in 3 months a 2 income house hold making $40,000 a year will get $312 in 3 months?

2009 Tax Brackets Announced

Cut out fed taxes altogether for 3 months and that same houshold will KEEP $1291 of THEIR MONEY in 3 months.




G&P

Consider this :

The Fed's Mortgage Muddle - BusinessWeek

Quote:

---

Fear of inflation and concerns over the long-term impact of ballooning government debt have been driving up yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes, which reached 3.91% on June 8 before easing back to 3.84% the next day.

But hasn't the Federal Reserve been working overtime to keep rates down? The prime reason for the Fed's commitment to buying Treasury debt was to lower mortgage rates to revive the moribund housing market. That was starting to work, but economists are now warning that rising mortgage rates will stop any rebound in the housing market in its tracks and derail the broader economic recovery.

---

Rising Rates Could Threaten Economic Recovery, Stock Rally - Markets * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

Quote:

---

The housing market had begun showing signs of recovery when the 30-year fixed mortgage rate plunged below 5 percent, triggered by government buying of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

But as the surge of Treasurys has continued, mortgage rates have popped higher, and that has put a damper on a housing recovery and investors hopes for a market turnaround.

"Housing was just starting to turn around, and higher mortgage rates, even if it's incremental—50 or 75 basis points—that can make all the difference in the world in terms of affordability," says Tom Higgins, chief economist at Payden & Rygel in Los Angeles.

Among the lingering concerns is that the Federal Reserve will react to inflation worries by tightening monetary policy, which would drive up mortgage costs even more.

---

The gov is going into more and more debt trying to manipulate interest rates to maintain recovery yet despite historically low rates

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MORTG.txt


Even a rate of 5.5% is enough to dampen the housing market and recovery yet also spark concerns of inflation!


In the 80s mortgage rates were > 10% and even with spending, primarily for defense to win the cold war, tax rates were cut and the result was the surplus of the 90s and some semblence of peace.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

You mean this:


Stimulus Checks | Stimulus Check | When Will I Receive My Stimulus Check | Taxes



that is pathetic, in 3 months a 2 income house hold making $40,000 a year will get $312 in 3 months?

2009 Tax Brackets Announced

Cut out fed taxes altogether for 3 months and that same houshold will KEEP $1291 of THEIR MONEY in 3 months.




G&P

---

No I am talking about the bush stimulus checks,

Here's one view from North of the border on our oh-so-cool president.


The reprint of this article will be appearing in the New York Times shortly. NOT. A sad observation from our neighbors from the north. How clear to them. Better overall vision?

To All: Very interesting article from Canada. The Canadian Press seems to be something like our AP, gathering news from across the world for the Canadian media. If these observations are true, it appears that the wizard behind the curtain is becoming exposed. We can only "hope". Now that would be "change" we could believe in

Canadian insight into the Obama Thing. What is astounding is that it comes from Canada, a, so far, more left Country than the U.S.

The Canadian Press

Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.

Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries

While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.

While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let's put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They
Have served only as high profile entertainment.

Neither alienating America's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.

At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.

The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.

That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.

Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.

His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.

Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.

The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW

Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on Café standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.

With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.

In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.

A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.

[Fluke. Double posted, edited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

[Fluke. Double posted, edited.

---

One man's opinion. Big whoop:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Here's one view from North of the border on our oh-so-cool president.


The reprint of this article will be appearing in the New York Times shortly. NOT. A sad observation from our neighbors from the north. How clear to them. Better overall vision?

To All: Very interesting article from Canada. The Canadian Press seems to be something like our AP, gathering news from across the world for the Canadian media.

The Canadian Press

---

You linked to the respectable site of the canadian Press and you describe it correctly BUT the article is NOT from them, it's from a conservative rag blog: Obama's White House is Falling Down

Here's the writer's bio: Canada Free Press: Daniel Greenfield
He's american through and through.

It's this attempt at lying that turns people off the whole republican thing. Pathetic and cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You linked to the respectable site of the The canadian Press and you describe it correctly BUT the article is NOT from them, it's from a conservative rag blog: Obama’s White House is Falling Down

Here's the writer's bio: Canada Free Press: Daniel Greenfield
He's american through and through.

It's this attempt at lying that turns people off the whole republican thing. Pathetic and cheap.

---

Wow, good work NK!

Remember we wanted change. Now we are going to get it.

In our pockets. Thanks to The new change of Industrialized America.

This is all about Control (not the land of the free) unless we add free to be taxed.

A cool President will be the one that will put an end to these Money hungry men, that seek power, and control over the people that elect them into office. Who work tirelessly to take away our freedoms that good men fought and died for. A cool President concerns are not based on these things and will not be swayed by untruths. Shall stand and crush all that comes his way. Not hide his face with glasses nor dress himself with a cool suit.

For a man must face all enemies face to face, eye to eye and make the RIGHT choice that will later determine, just how good of a choice it really was. For all things come back on us. Why not do it right the first time around. Time tells all .

More to raise eyebrows.

Scalia is following through: The pressure to continues to mount of getting suspicious records about Obama and his county of origin.

SNOPES confirms that Occidental College did, indeed, release records that Obama had been admitted to that California college as Barry Sortero ( one of Obama's known 6 names) on a Fullbright Scolarship with his country as INDONESIA!! Finally, just maybe the mask will come off. TRUTH OR FICTION takes a neutral position.

Smoking Gun Found? So what will happen now? Wonder why the media has not reported on this?

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship
For foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya, and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy, and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front- page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.


In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin S calia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.


Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his person al records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney gene ral, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

Dude, I think you lost credibility a long time ago.

Hello again, gal:

OMG! He IS a terrorist after all. Al Quaida has won.

You're getting a little too carried away... Here - smoke some of this... it's better than the koolaid you're drinking.

Actually, I think it's good to keep posting that stuff. We really need to know how bonkers your side is getting, and who is influenced by this stuff. Certainly YOU are.

You DO know that right wing groups, probably like the one's who dreamed up this stuff, ARE being investigated??

Should they be investigated?? Yup!

excon

Y'all keep saying it ain't so, and mebbe you're right.

Howsomever, if Obama has nothing to hide, why is he fignting tooth and nail to hide it?

Maybe he only defrauded someone on the scholarship.

Now that would be embarrassing wouldn't it?

More change from the cool dude.

This from USA Today.

Ellen Bassuk, president of the National Center on Family Homelessness.

"Shelters are overflowing to capacity. The number of families on the streets has dramatially increased."

Hopenchange delivered, right?

More cool from the Snowman.

Obama's budjet, if continued is projected to increase the national debt to $12.5 trillion by 2019.

(Source: Heritage Foundation)

Isn't that more than the COMBINED debt of all administrations from G. Washington to G. Bush?

Is that cool, or what?

Here's a graph of our national debt.

File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the early eighties it has tripled. Clinton brought it down a bit, so that means those responsible stewards of our economy the Republicans more than tripled it since the Reagan era. What should have been happening, if we had had good government under any Republican for the last 30 years, is that during good times we run a surplus/pay off debt so that when there is a crisis (like now) we have some capacity to run a deficit to keep the economy stimulated. Unfortunately our economy has been grossly mismanaged for the past 3 Republican presidents and now we are forced to make unpleasant choices. If we weren't foced to be making payments on our current debt our nation would have been able to afford the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, universal health care and a better energy policy.

I regularly waste my vote on candidates like Ross Perot and local centrist independent party candidates so I am far from a Democratic partisan, but I have nothing but sneering disregard these days for republicans opining about irresponsible democrats. Obama deserveds a bit of leeway to see what he can do. If we can get some solutios to health care, energy independence and our current economic crisis great. In a couple years will be time to put the pressure back on for dealing with our Republican-created budget mess.