The hate for Obama

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Ah grow up would ya. We can debate without that spun-up bs.

Its glaringly obvious that certain posters don't mind the trillions of dollars in debt, taxes being doubled and unemployment still rising now that "their team" is in charge. So asking how the Kool-Aid taste is an appropriate response.

RedPlanet

I really enjoy reading some of these threads.
Some of ye take pouting to whole new levels!
It's like turning over to the BBC after England get put out of the WC.
Gloating is great.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its glaringly obvious that certain posters don't mind the trillions of dollars in debt, taxes being doubled and unemployment still rising now that "their team" is in charge. So asking how the Kool-Aid taste is an appropriate response.

Perhaps nothing to do with brainwashing. More to do with "I voted for the guy" and "If youre calling him a failure, youre calling me a failure".

I stand behind my vote, but i mean, I have yet to be satisfied with the choice. Still waiting for my Return on that investment.

And I also didnt vote for, or hope for, the Supermajority. That I think is much more of a problem than Obama ever will be. I actually voted for Governor Romance

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps nothing to do with brainwashing. More to do with "I voted for the guy" and "If youre calling him a failure, youre calling me a failure".

If you think in those terms then you might be. You [that's a general statement not directed at you btw] want to enjoy trashing Bush and the Reps for making the Country bad [which they did] you can't cry when Obama and Dems make things worse [which they have and seems to be continuing to do]

I stand behind my vote, but i mean, I have yet to be satisfied with the choice. Still waiting for my Return on that investment.

I voted for McCain. I sleep soundly at night since my conscience is clear. The Dems have been called "The Tax and Spend Liberals" for years so how anybody can say with a straight face that they are surprised at what they are doing is beyond me.

And I also didnt vote for, or hope for, the Supermajority. That I think is much more of a problem than Obama ever will be. I actually voted for Governor Romance

Any rational person should be against the Supermajority. If the Reps still had control of the House and Senate or even if the Dems had a slight majority Obama would be limited to he could do. With this current setup every working class citizen is royally screwed.

DTrotter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its glaringly obvious that certain posters don't mind the trillions of dollars in debt, taxes being doubled and unemployment still rising now that "their team" is in charge. So asking how the Kool-Aid taste is an appropriate response.

Especially when Bush cut spending, balanced the budget, helped employment grow and reduced the deficit. Obama created this mess.

JohnMc1

DTrotter wrote: »

Especially when Bush cut spending, balanced the budget, helped employment grow and reduced the deficit. Obama created this mess.

Congrats on completely missing the point entirely. More Kool-Aid?

DTrotter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Congrats on completely missing the point entirely. More Kool-Aid?

To quote Patrick Swayze, ditto.

JohnMc1

DTrotter wrote: »

To quote Patrick Swayze, ditto.

What is your point then? I clearly stated that the current economic situation is Bush [for starting] and Obama [for making it worse] fault. Most people on here only want to blame Bush for it. Hence my Kool-aid point.

BlaasForRafa

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its glaringly obvious that certain posters don't mind the trillions of dollars in debt, taxes being doubled and unemployment still rising now that "their team" is in charge. So asking how the Kool-Aid taste is an appropriate response.

Bush was the one that started the huge debt-mountain.

Plus Obama is hardly to blame for the fact that the worst recession since the great depression hasn't turned yet. It took FDR years to lead the USA out of the pit that the bankers and republicans of that era had left it it, to think it will be any more rapid for Obama would be fanciful.

RedPlanet

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It took FDR years to lead the USA out of the pit that the bankers and republicans of that era had left it it, to think it will be any more rapid for Obama would be fanciful.

Exactly. One has to wonder if JohnMc1 actually does believe all the hype about Obama as a saviour. How else could one express disappointment in him so quickly?

JohnMc1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bush was the one that started the huge debt-mountain.

So using that logic its ok for Obama and the Dems to make it worse because they didn't start it?

Plus Obama is hardly to blame for the fact that the worst recession since the great depression hasn't turned yet. It took FDR years to lead the USA out of the pit that the bankers and republicans of that era had left it it, to think it will be any more rapid for Obama would be fanciful.

He and the Dems are being blamed for making it worse. And massive spending made that Depression longer than it should have been. Those who fail history and all that. Kool-Aid?

Overheal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Plus Obama is hardly to blame for the fact that the worst recession since the great depression hasn't turned yet.

Wasnt he on the senate floor when they were pushing out this subprime bs?

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Wasnt he on the senate floor when they were pushing out this subprime bs?

Shhhh... That's an inconvenient truth to his worshippers.

BlaasForRafa

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So using that logic its ok for Obama and the Dems to make it worse because they didn't start it?



He and the Dems are being blamed for making it worse. And massive spending made that Depression longer than it should have been. Those who fail history and all that. Kool-Aid?

blah blah blah kool-aid, is that all you've got to say? Perhaps you should quit slugging down the republican kool-aid but its blindingly obvious you won't.

DTrotter

Overheal wrote: »

Wasnt he on the senate floor when they were pushing out this subprime bs?

Yes McCain was. Believe me I'm no worshipper, my point is no one was screaming spending or debt when Bush was in office. "If" Obamas gamble pays off and the economy rebounds and the stimulus money is recouped at the end of 4 years isn't there a chance he could leave office and have spent less than Bush.
Why did McCain so glowingly announce he was suspending his campaign for a day?

Overheal

DTrotter wrote: »

Yes McCain was

Also true. But you cant make the claim that Obama is blameless.

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If I thought you were willing to put the Kool-aid for a minute I would try and have a discussion but since nothing I say or post will change your mind you're not worth the effort.

Hang on, I asked for clarification about things you were saying. All you have do to is post a few links to reputable sources that back you up, otherwise what you are saying is untrue. Since you didn't it must false!;)

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So using that logic its ok for Obama and the Dems to make it worse because they didn't start it?



He and the Dems are being blamed for making it worse. And massive spending made that Depression longer than it should have been. Those who fail history and all that. Kool-Aid?

No No No, all wrong. It was the introduction of protectionism that killed the world economy not spending.

jank

DTrotter wrote: »

Especially when Bush Clinton cut spending, balanced the budget, helped employment grow and reduced the deficit. Obama created this mess.

Fixed that for you!

RedPlanet

I'm going to post this here since it seems relevant to the title of the thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61120390&postcount=1
Basically, the "foreign minister" of the Honduras coup leveled a racist slur against Obama.
US press (and Irish and UK) didn't report it.

JohnMc1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

blah blah blah kool-aid, is that all you've got to say? Perhaps you should quit slugging down the republican kool-aid but its blindingly obvious you won't.

Point to where I said the Reps were blameless in this mess. Oh that's right you can't. Keep using the "Bush did it." card to cover for "your team" making thing alot more worse.

RedPlanet

Obama has been in power for what 6 almost 7 months?
And you think that that is ample time for him to turn the economy around?
Don't you think that this recession is rather, um bigger than that?
Isn't this the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?
If that is the case, then shouldn't we expect it to take a number of years before things improve?

I think that the recession/depression is like a blackhole, and no matter what sort of goodies you throw at it, they just get swallowed right up in a big sh*t storm. Obama is damned if he does nothing, and damned if he throws money at it.
At least by throwing money at the problem it may soften some of the fall out. But the recession really has to run it's course.

It's pretty much what they all say.
Now that doesn't mean we should just throw are hands up and pretend there's nothing constructive to do.
Hard decisions have to be made.
But Obama's presidency is too young to say he's made the problem worse.
Because, how can anybody say for example that the unemployment rate wouldn't have been worse, if Obama had done nothing?

JohnMc1

RedPlanet wrote: »

Obama has been in power for what 6 almost 7 months?
And you think that that is ample time for him to turn the economy around?

That's still no excuse for him to go and double the National Debt. His first Stimulus plan didn't work so his planned Second Stimulus Plan will be nothing more than flushing more money down the toilet.

DTrotter

Overheal wrote: »

Also true. But you cant make the claim that Obama is blameless.

I'm not talking about blamelessnes, just consistency in criticism. If Obama is just an average president I'd be happy, seriously who really believed he would change things to the extent he said he would? If massive banks went under and caused a massive negative effect do you think the critics would praise Obama for letting the monolithic, omnipotent market fairy take care of things.

DTrotter

jank wrote: »

Fixed that for you!

Damn you, you destroyed my sarcasm.

DTrotter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

That's still no excuse for him to go and double the National Debt. His first Stimulus plan didn't work so his planned Second Stimulus Plan will be nothing more than flushing more money down the toilet.

Has he doubled it. As of last year wasn't it something like 9 or 10 trillion (going by the film IOUSA), which jumped by 4 trillion under Bush.

RedPlanet

JohnMc1 wrote: »

That's still no excuse for him to go and double the National Debt. His first Stimulus plan didn't work so his planned Second Stimulus Plan will be nothing more than flushing more money down the toilet.

The national debt? Hmm, don't remember you on boards complaining when the Bush regime was what.. teble-ing that?

How do you know that instead of "flushing money down the toilet", the second stimulus plan instead rescues thousands of homeowners from loosing their property? Or keeps a few hundred thousands in employment for the next 12 months..

JohnMc1

RedPlanet wrote: »

The national debt? Hmm, don't remember you on boards complaining when the Bush regime was what.. teble-ing that?

How do you know that instead of "flushing money down the toilet", the second stimulus plan instead rescues thousands of homeowners from loosing their property? Or keeps a few hundred thousands in employment for the next 12 months..

I did. Tough luck you have selective memory. You don't know what the second stimulus plan would do either.It will just pad their pet projects and nothing beneficial to the average worker will be involved. It can/will be just another excuse to jack up our taxes.

Sand

Because, how can anybody say for example that the unemployment rate wouldn't have been worse, if Obama had done nothing?

Obama's economists - they predicted a rate of unemployment in the US that would exist if Obama didnt introduce his stimulus plan.



Having introduced his stimulus plan, the rate of unemployment actually became worse than what was predicted if he did nothing. Obamas team is apparently fairly stumped as to why unemployment is worse than they ever predicted possible.

Again, it will be interesting to see what the success or failure of Obamas stimulus plan means for economic theory.

At least by throwing money at the problem it may soften some of the fall out. But the recession really has to run it's course.

That is the problem - a recession needs to run its course, assets need to be redistributed into projects with a successful return. Can a stimulus package designed to protect employment encourage and speed that redistribution or slow it by trying to sustain jobs that just arent productive?

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

the rate of unemployment actually became worse than what was predicted if he did nothing.

Which could mean that their predictions were very optimistic.
And if he had done nothing, the unemployment rate could have been much much worse again. You haven't proved anything other than the prediction was optimistic. It doesn't follow that doing nothing, is the best answer.

That is the problem - a recession needs to run its course, assets need to be redistributed into projects with a successful return. Can a stimulus package designed to protect employment encourage and speed that redistribution or slow it by trying to sustain jobs that just arent productive?

Yeah, like the man just said:

Obama Says Some Lost Auto Jobs ‘Won’t Be Coming Back’

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asSVzhcNQyyI
As he promotes education.