Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Obama v Johnson (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=681035)

  • Jul 10, 2012, 08:04 AM
    excon
    Obama v Johnson
    Hello:

    Why I believe LBJ was successful, is because he went to congress and twisted arms. Obama doesn't visit at all.

    Although we're few in numbers, our discussions here DO represent the polarization of our nation.. Yet, I BELIEVE, that if charged with the responsibility, we COULD govern. And, we could, I believe, because of the RELATIONSHIP we have.

    Do I sound like a squishy liberal? Are the days of empathizing with your opposition over? Is it smash him at any cost? Is it different this time?

    excon
  • Jul 10, 2012, 08:41 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:

    Why I believe LBJ was successful, is because he went to congress and twisted arms. Obama doesn't visit at all.

    Although we're few in numbers, our discussions here DO represent the polarization of our nation.. Yet, I BELIEVE, that if charged with the responsibility, we COULD govern. And, we could, I believe, because of the RELATIONSHIP we have.

    Do I sound like a squishy liberal? Are the days of empathizing with your opposition over? Is it smash him at any cost? Is it different this time?

    excon
    You have a point that Obama punted and allowed San Fran Nan to take the point on most of his agenda when he had the majority .
    The difference between Obama and LBJ is years of preparation for the job . LBJ had developed the relationships he exploited years before he assumed command. It wasn't arm twisting that he did .He built coalitions with some horse trading .

    Obama? well you know that he was a lightweight backbencher on the best days of his brief tenure in the Senate .
    But more important . He is insular ;has surrounded himself with likeminded advisors from his Chi town or Ivy League circle . He, to date, doesn't have a Chief of Staff who can effectively interact with Congress .In fact ;he can't seem to keep a Chief of Staff for any extended period .Rhambo Emanuel ,Pete Rouse ,Bill Daley all left... and what does anyone know of current Chief of Staff Jack Lew ? I bet you didn't even know who was Chief of Staff before now. Truth is that radicals like Valerie Jarrett run the show ;and they are uncompromising.
    They believe they were elected to "reform " the country and that is their single minded goal.
    Yes the President has mishandled relationships with Congress badly ;and it is evident in the apparent gridlock. But instead of making moves to repair the relationship ;he has adopted a Trumansque campaign to demonize Congress from the bully pulpit. I can't predict if it will work or not . But that tact did not make Truman any more effective in his 2nd term ;and he left as unpopular as any President in modern history .

    I am not sure if relationships can be repaired with the current crop of incumbents in either the White House or the Legislature. The one advantage of having people serve for life in the past was that personal relationships could be nurtured . Now they entrench ;and even intra-party there is reluctance to listen to anyone who strays from the estabished party line. All the more reason for term limits .
  • Jul 10, 2012, 08:54 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    I blame Obama for NOT reaching out. You DON'T blame Mitch McConnell for shutting the door BEFORE Obama even knocked. That's where you go WAYYY wrong.

    This ISN'T a problem with the Democrats, and I wasn't inviting you to pile on. I was looking for solutions. You DID answer ONE of my queries, though.. You're willing to DEMONIZE the other side no matter what, and hold yourself blameless... THAT is your solution, and your ONLY solution.

    And, it ain't going to work.

    excon
  • Jul 10, 2012, 09:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    During the campaign Obama called a significant number Americans bitter clingers.

    During the campaign Obama called on his supporters to go to their friends and neighbors with this marching order, "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

    Obama campaigned on "one America" then promptly shut Republicans out and said "I won."

    He campaigned on "one America" then accused the Cambridge police of acting "stupidly" in what should never have been a racial incident.

    How many times has he called for snitches? Three? Four? Five? More?

    He not only let others carry his water in leading from behind, he did far more than his "fair share" of expanding the divide. Nevertheless we're still America and we can work together but it's going to take a leader, a Reagan, a JFK, a Lincoln... and more balance and intellectual honesty in our schools for starters.
  • Jul 10, 2012, 10:05 AM
    excon
    Hello Steve:

    More piling on... You've confirmed it... Righty's CAN'T read.

    excon
  • Jul 10, 2012, 10:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    I can read but it's just like with my wife and having selective hearing. :p

    But hey, I did at least comment on a solution: "Nevertheless we're still America and we can work together but it's going to take a leader, a Reagan, a JFK, a Lincoln...and more balance and intellectual honesty in our schools for starters."

    So if we had a beer summit could we work things out?
  • Jul 10, 2012, 10:17 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    I blame Obama for NOT reaching out. You DON'T blame Mitch McConnell for shutting the door BEFORE Obama even knocked. That's where you go WAYYY wrong.

    This ISN'T a problem with the Democrats, and I wasn't inviting you to pile on. I was looking for solutions. You DID answer ONE of my queries, though.. You're willing to DEMONIZE the other side no matter what, and hold yourself blameless... THAT is your solution, and your ONLY solution.

    And, it ain't going to work.

    Excon
    I guess you missed this part of my reply
    Quote:
    am not sure if relationships can be repaired with the current crop of incumbents in either the White House or the Legislature. The one advantage of having people serve for life in the past was that personal relationships could be nurtured . Now they entrench ;and even intra-party there is reluctance to listen to anyone who strays from the estabished party line. All the more reason for term limits .
    I'll allow for the possibility of change and compromise when we have different leaders . And by the way.. I am blameless.
  • Jul 10, 2012, 10:37 AM
    speechlesstx
    And term limits. :)
  • Jul 10, 2012, 07:48 PM
    talaniman
    Term limits on beer, or politicians?
  • Jul 11, 2012, 07:43 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Term limits on beer, or politicians??
    Both should be cut off before someone gets too drunk.
  • Jul 11, 2012, 08:02 AM
    ebaines
    Reality check: LBJ initially had the mantle of JFK, and he had a land-slide victory over Goldwater in '64 so his first two years in office were pretty much one long honeymoon. He also enjoyed both House and Senate that were conrolled by the dems (which they did for 26 straight years from 1955 - 1980). His major "Great Society" accomplishments of the Civil Rights Act, Medicaire, and Medicaid were all achieved in those first two years, But by '67 the Vietnam War had ended the honeymoon. By '68 the mood was so sour that he (wisely) declined to run for reelection and let his VP fall to defeat by Nixon. So yes, he got things done when the time was right, but not so much once his popularity began to fade.
  • Jul 11, 2012, 08:08 AM
    tomder55
    Bingo ! Simularily Obama got his major policy agenda accomplished in the 1st 2 years. Now he moans that the policies he instituted did not work .
  • Jul 11, 2012, 08:21 AM
    talaniman
    He didn't sound like he was moaning to me! He said pass the bill! A slight raise in rich guy taxes builds a lot of roads, bridges, and schools. Lots of jobs you know. 05 percent for a million jobs??
  • Jul 11, 2012, 08:31 AM
    speechlesstx
    Based on his past success of creating jobs I see no reason to give president rerun a do-over.
  • Jul 11, 2012, 08:44 AM
    excon
    1 Attachment(s)
    Hello again, Steve:

    Nuff said. Ok, there's a little more.. This chart tells you that if you liked Bush, you'll LOVE Romney.

    excon
  • Jul 11, 2012, 10:07 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:
    He didn't sound like he was moaning to me! He said pass the bill! A slight raise in rich guy taxes builds a lot of roads, bridges, and schools. Lots of jobs you know. 05 percent for a million jobs??
    Lol the money he's looking for is equal to 8 days of revenue for Obama spending . With this guy we seem to be in a movie called "Endless Summer ...Recovery"
    .
    5.6 % unemployment during the Bush years was called a 'jobless recovery'.. What is 8+% for many consecutive months ?
    3.6% growth was "it's the economy Stupid " .What is a growth rate less than 2% ? He keeps on going back to the Clintoon tax rates . Fine... let's also go back to the Clintoon spending rates . The annual Obama deficit is equal to the annual Clintoon budget .
  • Jul 11, 2012, 11:31 AM
    ebaines
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Ok, there's a little more.. This chart tells you that if you liked Bush, you'll LOVE Romney.

    excon
    The problem with charts used in trying to make political points is that there's always another chart to refute whatever point you're trying to make. Your chart is intentionally designed to make employment under Bush look as bad as possible, by including only his last year - when we were in recession - , versus three years for Obama. So here's the complete chart: http://reflectionsofarationalrepubli...-2012-data.jpg

    Not sure what conclusions one can draw about each party's ability to create jobs versus the other. Note that 9/11/01 occurred early in W's watch, which clearly played a factor toward the end of his first year. But maybe this chart is more on point:

    http://reflectionsofarationalrepubli...-2012-data.jpg
  • Jul 11, 2012, 12:06 PM
    excon
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ebaines View Post
    there's always another chart to refute whatever point you're trying to make.
    Hello again, ebaines:

    When you give your friends the keys to the lockbox, it's easy to create a bubble... And that's exactly what they did.. When a bubble is happening, money is flowing and jobs are easy to create.. But, as BOTH charts show, those jobs were PHANTOM, TEMPORARY jobs. When the bubble went, so did the jobs.

    excon
  • Jul 11, 2012, 01:20 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, ebaines:

    When you give your friends the keys to the lockbox, it's easy to create a bubble.... And that's exactly what they did.. When a bubble is happening, money is flowing and jobs are easy to create.. But, as BOTH charts show, those jobs were PHANTOM, TEMPORARY jobs. When the bubble went, so did the jobs.

    excon
    ebaines ;this is true . All you need to do to see this example in practice is the green energy startups that stimulus money went to.
  • Jul 11, 2012, 03:27 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ebaines View Post
    The problem with charts used in trying to make political points is that there's always another chart to refute whatever point you're trying to make. Your chart is intentionally designed to make employment under Bush look as bad as possible, by including only his last year - when we were in recession - , versus three years for Obama. So here's the complete chart: http://reflectionsofarationalrepubli...-2012-data.jpg
    Interesting graph, what it indicates to me is Bush era statistics spend more time below the line than Obama of course it is early days yet and it also illustrates that unemployment is cumlative and was until recently a growing problem. Good news though when things start to increase at an increasing rate there is only one ultimate direction, down

    • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 AM.