• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt President

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Since the dollar is down 40% since 2000, most of this happened under GWB. Were you complaining about this then, or are you just another partisan hack?
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
I love how every thread that is critical of Obama gets derailed by the sheep squad.


Talk about the points the article is making, not about individual posters. If this is really how it is going to be for the next 4-8, it is rather sad.



This article is right on track. What Obama is doing has the potential to tank the dollar in a way we have never seen in our lifetime.

Yeah guys, why are you commenting on the commentary the OP included with the article?
 
Reducing the debt is not a popular topic among voters, FIRST. SECOND, don't even think a (R) would do it; he'd probably finance another 900-billion war, but with IRAN, and why not another one (on the side) with DPRK (North Korea).

You can criticize Obama all you want, but the truth is that neither McCain nor Palin would have spent "minimally" and wisely and would have started to try to reduce the debt.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

The dollar, which has already lost 40 percent of its value against the euro since 2000, would then devaluate and its reputation would be further diminished.

When I was in Germany the lowest the Euro got was 1.15 Dollar = 1 EUR. Considering the EUR started at 1.2 Dollar = 1 EUR I wouldn't say the valuation is that bad at the moment.

But it could get worse, and it certainly will.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?

Okay, the fact that the media is not 100% anti-Obama proves it is in his "backpocket" and tainted. Got it.

I have thought about if the steps Mr Bush took in his war on terrorism are analogous to what Mr Obama has done to keep the US and the world out of a 1929 type economic depression. The US president taking difficult steps in response to a national and global crisis. The themes are similar.

I am still working on this but this is what I have so far:

I consider Mr Bush to be the worst POTUS in my lifetime.

Bush's invasion of Iraq negated pretty much all the credibility he had in terms of foreign policy. WTF was he thinking when he shifted US military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq?

His outing of a CIA agent, the fucked up handling of Katrina, and the current economic crisis point to a level of incompetence in domestic policy that has not been seen in recent memory. I have read Bush apologists write that he was not responsible for these events but he was president and bucks stops at his desk.


After only five months in office I am not ready to put Mr Obama in the same league of historical Presidential incompetence that Mr Bush rules.

I am concerned that Mr Obama has not done enough because I look at the 1990's Japanese economic collapse and the fact that it has not completely recovered.

 
Back
Top