Our Obama?

Manic Moran

liah wrote: »

It's absolutely astonishing to me that supposedly mature, sensible adults expect instant change in such a massive country that is so beyond fvcked after the Bush era.

We don't.

I've personally always been of the opinion that it takes the better part of two years before any changes in economic policy have any huge effect, for the better or the worse. Here's the catch. We're nearly two years into the Obama presidency, and he's had the advantage of a headstart of having a Democrat-controlled Congress (And it's congress that deals with money) since 2008, and the best we've got from him is 'Yes, it's gotten a little worse, but it would have been even more disastrous if we hadn't done what we did'.

The 'Blame Bush' dog won't hunt any more. As the elections two weeks ago showed.

NTM

Irish Guitarist

The only reason Barack Obama appears so good is because of the moron that was president before him. All he has to do to appear better than his predecessor is to not start any new wars.

SharpshooterTom

He decided to continue a war and even increased the number of troops in Afghanistan ffs. 959 US troops have died since he took office. Bush lost 5070 so he's doing well so far if he wants to overtake him.

Mark200

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the thing. I look at many of the items on that list.

Example: Promise # 174, "Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days". Or #200, "Appoint a White House Co-Ordinator for Nuclear Security". #241 "Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions"

And then I look at some of the items on the 'not done' list.
#317 "Invest in transitional jobs and career pathway programs"
#124 "Create a fund for international small and medium enterprises"
#379 "Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit"
#515 "No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase.""
#314 "Invest in transitional jobs and career pathway programs"

And then I listen to my local radio station, and hear it tell me that unemployment is at about 13% and not getting any better.

I don't care how many things a politician gets done, the legislation books are full of daft timewasting laws. I'm more interested in tangible results. "It's the economy, Stupid" is just as valid today as it was when first uttered back in the Clinton days.

NTM

Fair enough, except that there are 124 promises on the 'promises kept' list and only 24 on the promises broken.

Manic Moran wrote: »

We don't.

I've personally always been of the opinion that it takes the better part of two years before any changes in economic policy have any huge effect, for the better or the worse. Here's the catch. We're nearly two years into the Obama presidency, and he's had the advantage of a headstart of having a Democrat-controlled Congress (And it's congress that deals with money) since 2008, and the best we've got from him is 'Yes, it's gotten a little worse, but it would have been even more disastrous if we hadn't done what we did'.

The 'Blame Bush' dog won't hunt any more. As the elections two weeks ago showed.

NTM

His administration has managed to stabilise the job market. Jobs were being lost at a rapid pace.

http://images.vizworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif

Mark200

Gnobe wrote: »

He decided to continue a war and even increased the number of troops in Afghanistan ffs.

Which he said he'd do in his campaign.

Manic Moran

Fair enough, except that there are 124 promises on the 'promises kept' list and only 24 on the promises broken.

Vs how many that he hasn't actually manged to complete? 84 are rated as 'stalled', and another 230 have barely been started. 'Broken' simply means that he reversed himself. Even that is, at least, an accomplishment, as opposed to 'stalled' or 'in the works'

NTM

0verblood

Dont we have a black mayor somewhere?

syklops

We don't.

I've personally always been of the opinion that it takes the better part of two years before any changes in economic policy have any huge effect, for the better or the worse. Here's the catch. We're nearly two years into the Obama presidency, and he's had the advantage of a headstart of having a Democrat-controlled Congress (And it's congress that deals with money) since 2008, and the best we've got from him is 'Yes, it's gotten a little worse, but it would have been even more disastrous if we hadn't done what we did'.

The 'Blame Bush' dog won't hunt any more. As the elections two weeks ago showed.

NTM

Seriously?? Two years for changes in economic policy to have HUGE effects? No wonder people are disappointed with Obama if this is a common belief. 2 years? Try 10.

This is why Bertie and FF were given such praise for bringing us the Celtic Tiger. The fact is the seeds were sown by Labour and Fine Gael in the 80s.

The 'Blame Bush' dog won't hunt any more. As the elections two weeks ago showed.

All the elections 2 weeks ago showed is that most people think as you do. That Obama could click his fingers like Mary Poppins and fix the economy.

SharpshooterTom

Mark200 wrote: »

Which he said he'd do in his campaign.

Doesn't mean it's right though? It isn't very different to what Bush was doing in Iraq? Change?

Sure he won the Nobel peace prize anyway didn't he. :rolleyes:

Ellian

One of his lesser known Bartlet moments.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6963DJ20101007

Mark200

Gnobe wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's right though? It isn't very different to what Bush was doing in Iraq? Change?

Sure he won the Nobel peace prize anyway didn't he. :rolleyes:

Doesn't mean it's right, no, but to act surprised about something that he said throughout his Presidential campaign that he'd do is a bit silly. He said over and over that he believed that Afghanistan is where the real war is, and that he'd move American resources from Iraq to Afghanistan for that reason. Why is what he has done. Although, it has been well publicised that US Commanders wanted more troops for the war than Obama was willing to give.

And on the subject of the Nobel Peace Prize... that prize is rarely awarded to people who have achieved a whole lot of anything. Usually it is awarded to people who are trying to achieve something.

dolphin city

you don't seem to know much about US politics OP - obama being in there means absolutely nothing. Its the same ould tripe they care about - taxes and they probably do more bickering than any country.

what we need is a true leader and for that we need to look West I agree, but not to the States.

panda100

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't think we have anyone who could be compared to Obama or Cameron. The only charismatic and sincere politicians in this country belong to parties which will never be put in power. If Joe Higgins left the SWP for a more centrist party I reckon I'd vote for him in a heartbeat

Joe is a member of The Socialist Party not SWP. He's got principles and he sticks to them, so no way would he leave for a centrist party. He has completely gone up in my estimations today after storming out of another closed door Eu meeting that wants to keep us all in the dark! http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2010/nov/23/ireland?cat=business&type=article

Monty Burnz

As the common consensus moves towards Fianna Failure being the worst rulers of this country in its long history, perhaps we need to look around for a new, improved model of leadership. Here are a few suggestions of my own - feel free to add to them.

Saddam Hussein:

Pro - Strong leader. Good for resolving tribal disputes.
Con - Displayed a Fianna Failure-like disregard for his citizens. Pugnacious.

Adolf Hilter:

Pro - Good organiser. Did wonders with the infrastructure.
Con - Moustache nearly as bad as Willy O'Dea. Genocidal.

Stalin:

Pro - Crafty. Switched allegiances as the situation changed. Terrified subordinates in Haughey-esque manner. Would be popular with Unions.
Anti - Slightly paranoid. Over-emphasis on central planning. Murdered millions.

Pol Pot:

Pro - Visionary. Reformist. Motivated his party very effectively.
Anti - Fianna Failure-like disregard for actual people. Anti-intellectual on a Healy-Rae scale.

Idi Amin:

Pro - Cheerful. Contagious laugh. Man of the people.
Anti - Murderous cannibal. Contentious industrial policies.

Osama bin Laden:

Pro - Good organiser. Inspires loyalty. Beard a Shinner would be proud of.
Con - Dogmatism approaches Fianna Failure levels. Hard man to find.

Genghis Khan

Pro - Not afraid of IMF or anyone else. Good for horse industry. Easier to understand than Fianna Failure bogmen.
Con - Not afraid of IMF or anyone else. Smelly.

Oliver Cromwell

Pro - Principled. Determined. Identified and achieved targets. Serious-looking. More respect for Ireland than Fianna Failure.
Con - Over ambitious. Strange hairdo. Bloodthirsty maniac.

Sanjuro

And the ludicrous post of the day award goes to....

orourkeda

I think a large dollop of Adolf would do the trick.

Anyone with pot in his name gets the ministry of finance

Snakeblood

Cleopatra.

Boobs.

starbelgrade

Was this thread not started & locked yesterday?

mawk

From your summary I'd probably go with cromwell. You make him sound like a decent leader and not the biggest prick in ireland's history

Turtyturd

No Fidel?

SEPT 23 1989

Who is Adolf Hilter?

prinz

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Who is Adolf Hilter?

I think he was in a Monty Python sketch once.

orourkeda

starbelgrade wrote: »

Was this thread not started & locked yesterday?

Biffo was locked yesterday too

dr.bollocko

Meh-rged.

mikemac

Mussolini as Minister for Transport

He made the trains run on time

ricero

we need a hitler he did a cracking job up till 1939

mikemac

Kerry demands their autobahn!

FatherLen

i thought you said bacon of hope

Manic Moran

syklops wrote: »

Seriously?? Two years for changes in economic policy to have HUGE effects? No wonder people are disappointed with Obama if this is a common belief. 2 years? Try 10.

I'm not looking for a Rolls Royce in every driveway here. In my usual understating manner, my definition of 'huge' is a 'trend', because that is what is really significant. It may take a decade for that trend to result in reductions in the national debt, but the trend itself should be visible within a couple of years.

Besides, by your own arguments, the blame for the global recession then should lie with Clinton. After all, the economy was starting to trend downhill with Bush in Year 6, ten years prior to that (If you want to use your decade argument) Clinton was in charge. Even when the economy was in runaway mode, that was less than a decade since Clinton. Of course, this also ignores the effects of Congress, which was Republican for most of the last decade.

Ultimately, of course, it's far bigger than any one cause. It was a combination of President, Congress, Regulatory body, and general stupidity by bankers and loan-takers. It would take far more than just a President, however good, to fix it all. But don't promise what you can't fix.

NTM

enfant terrible

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

Obama , maybe he should grow a back bone and plough ahead with what he wants to do. We defiantly dont need an obama

He already added 2.5 Trillion to the US debt, how much more do the far left want him to spend?

syklops

enfant terrible wrote: »

He already added 2.5 Trillion to the US debt, how much more do the far left want him to spend?

The second term is for ploughing ahead with things he wants to do, regardless.

If he makes too many enemies early in his presidency, he wont get anything else done.

I'm not looking for a Rolls Royce in every driveway here. In my usual understating manner, my definition of 'huge' is a 'trend', because that is what is really significant. It may take a decade for that trend to result in reductions in the national debt, but the trend itself should be visible within a couple of years.

You're not just talking about a small economy like Ireland's, your talking about a global economy. Something so vast is very difficult to watch all of the time. There are trends, lots of them but in your previous post, you weren't talking about positive trends on the global market, you were talking about listening to the radio and hearing there were still people out of work. What you mean, you have not seen a trend that benefits you yet. You're still asking for too much expecting that kind of a trend within the first half of his first term.

Besides, by your own arguments, the blame for the global recession then should lie with Clinton. After all, the economy was starting to trend downhill with Bush in Year 6, ten years prior to that (If you want to use your decade argument) Clinton was in charge. Even when the economy was in runaway mode, that was less than a decade since Clinton. Of course, this also ignores the effects of Congress, which was Republican for most of the last decade.

If you read back over my posts you will see I dont blame Bush for the Global recession. I think a global recession on this scale is too big to blame any one individual, or for that matter any one nation. The surge in consumer electronics has a part to play in my opinion. Bad lending practices by all banks. The war on Terror has a part to play too.

It would take far more than just a President, however good, to fix it all. But don't promise what you can't fix.

NTM

He's only had 2 years. And lets face it, the first 6 months in a new job is learning where the toilets are and how to work the phones. If the rest of his support crumbles as fast as the support from the average joe has, no wonder he is not making as much progress as people would like. You can't have it both ways.