Will Obamamania Sweep The Nation Like It Did Back In 08'??

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

I would actually nearly rather Romney to Ron Paul, even though I fully agree with nearly everything he believes. His foreign policy is spot on, he seems honest and genuine and most of his views are spot on re drugs etc, but he is so far out in others, bring back the gold standard and stuff like that scare me. Also he stood there as people said "let him die" and he is a doctor!! It was shameful how he was threated by the media in the contest, just shows how money works in political circles.

It's an odd thing, Paul would never get attention or elected because he poses such a threat to the established order. That's something I just can't square about Obama, was he really as naive as he seems to have been or was he under the thumb right from the outset?
The "Let him die" thing was one of the few times Paul got any mainstream coverage and around then he said he wouldn't not treat a patient for not having cash and stories have come out about plenty of free treatment he's done. As for the junior, well none of the respect I have for Ron Paul trickles down to him. :pac:
As for Romney, I see very little difference in outcomes whether he or Obama wins the election, just different pockets lined in the end.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He pursued and achieved meaningful reform in the US education system. He also worked tirelessly for immigrant reform and was very open to a solution that suited both sides. In medicare he expanded prescription coverage.

His tax relief measures in his first term were also considered to be a success despite dissenting voices from many at the time.

Did a fair amount for AIDS treatment or prevention programmes and the like in Sub-Saharan Africa didn't he? Shows he wasn't as anti-contraception as people might like to make him out to be :pac:

FrostyJack

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He pursued and achieved meaningful reform in the US education system. He also worked tirelessly for immigrant reform and was very open to a solution that suited both sides. In medicare he expanded prescription coverage.

His tax relief measures in his first term were also considered to be a success despite dissenting voices from many at the time.

I think his support of "teach the controversy" negates any positives he completed in the education system, though the No Child Left Behind Act was a decent effort on his part. I also would say "Obama care" expanded medical even more than Bush did. The Bush tax cuts helped in part create MASSIVE deficits in the budget, even without his wars on the bill. Clinton had surplus's! The American economy will not be recovering anytime soon, although he is not totally at fault for the recession, he most definitly did nothing to help stop it. Obama started his first (possibly last term) already under the gun. Osama is dead, GM is alive! If you add Bushs policys on LBGT issues like not repealing don't ask don't tell , his disregard for seperation of church and state and also his climate change denial, plus many more stupid policies all add up to a fail. Obama hasn't been good, never mind great, but I can see how Bush was any better. Not even the hardline GOP contributers stand up for him.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

I think his support of "teach the controversy" negates any positives he completed in the education system, though the No Child Left Behind Act was a decent effort on his part. I also would say "Obama care" expanded medical even more than Bush did. The Bush tax cuts helped in part create MASSIVE deficits in the budget, even without his wars on the bill. Clinton had surplus's! The American economy will not be recovering anytime soon, although he is not totally at fault for the recession, he most definitly did nothing to help stop it. Obama started his first (possibly last term) already under the gun. Osama is dead, GM is alive! If you add Bushs policys on LBGT issues like not repealing don't ask don't tell , his disregard for seperation of church and state and also his climate change denial, plus many more stupid policies all add up to a fail. Obama hasn't been good, never mind great, but I can see how Bush was any better. Not even the hardline GOP contributers stand up for him.

Well the trouble is figuring out what he could've done to stop it. There was a recession on the cards before 9/11 thanks to Clinton (who inherited another mess) using expansion in the money supply (thanks Greenspan!) to keep things inflated more than they naturally would've been and all Bush could do was let a recession happen or delay it. He did what just about anyone would be expected to do and delayed it.

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the trouble is figuring out what he could've done to stop it.

The money for wars and tax cuts could have been used to help at least. As you said the pieces were in place long before Bush took over, Reagan could even be implicated in its inititation.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0714/romney-demands-obama-apology-over-felony-claim.html

Some good news on the cards at least.

sock puppet

FrostyJack wrote: »

I think his support of "teach the controversy" negates any positives he completed in the education system, though the No Child Left Behind Act was a decent effort on his part. I also would say "Obama care" expanded medical even more than Bush did. The Bush tax cuts helped in part create MASSIVE deficits in the budget, even without his wars on the bill. Clinton had surplus's! The American economy will not be recovering anytime soon, although he is not totally at fault for the recession, he most definitly did nothing to help stop it. Obama started his first (possibly last term) already under the gun. Osama is dead, GM is alive! If you add Bushs policys on LBGT issues like not repealing don't ask don't tell , his disregard for seperation of church and state and also his climate change denial, plus many more stupid policies all add up to a fail. Obama hasn't been good, never mind great, but I can see how Bush was any better. Not even the hardline GOP contributers stand up for him.

Bush bailed out GM, and fought against his own party to do it. Not that it hurt him since it was the last few months of his career.

FrostyJack

sock puppet wrote: »

Bush bailed out GM, and fought against his own party to do it. Not that it hurt him since it was the last few months of his career.

Bush intialised a bail out, but according to some people his measures were substanially inadequate and the targets given were either were too low or non existant (money for nothing). Obama gave a much larger amount and stipulated a major restructuring plan in the company (in some circles they say this gave the Unions too much power) which essentially made the company profitable again (though it seems the tax payers lost substantial money they will never get back directly). It is funny how the Fox commentators always bring up Obama giving away free money in bail outs, when their own party did it too.

Biggins

FrostyJack wrote: »

...It was shameful how he was threated by the media in the contest, just shows how money works in political circles.

Speaking of money!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLBgCIsMkwU

dermo88

Obama is proving to be something of a Jimmy Carter Mk II, and there are similarities in terms of inheriting a horrific economic mess. However, Mitt Romney is just a horrible, wooden, typical repeat of the smarmy, Bible bashing, right wing, nasty part of the American Republican Party.

Has anything changed under Obama. Certainly, there is a sense of more optimism in the air, and anything is better than the 8 years of maladministration under Bush II.

But, the Republican Party is blocking all initiatives for the sake of blocking for its own sake, placing party before country, a policy which......is morally questionable. But thats America, Land of the Brave, home of the free.....America.....best cuntry in the world.....

The problem is that so many there.....actually believe it.