I hate when people use that sort of line to lower expectations for Obama. Plenty of presidents took office at times of great strife. When Truman took the oath, a world war was still in full swing, the atomic age was looming, and a large part of Europe was a smoldering shell. Johnson had to deal with social upheaval, a growing cold war, escalation in Vietnam, a war he did not start. When Carter rolled into town, post-Watergate cynicism against gov't was at an all-time high, and he had the twin demons of recession and inflation to battle. I'll admit, Obama didn't inherit a picnic, but he's hardly alone either in coming into office with big fires to put out.
I hate when people use that sort of line to lower expectations for Obama. Plenty of presidents took office at times of great strife. When Truman took the oath, a world war was still in full swing, the atomic age was looming, and a large part of Europe was a smoldering shell. Johnson had to deal with social upheaval, a growing cold war, escalation in Vietnam, a war he did not start. When Carter rolled into town, post-Watergate cynicism against gov't was at an all-time high, and he had the twin demons of recession and inflation to battle. I'll admit, Obama didn't inherit a picnic, but he's hardly alone either in coming into office with big fires to put out.
Rating politicians is like rating turds, how impressive can one really be?
He's doing better than Bush but that isn't saying much.
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I didnt say he was the only one that inherited a bad situation, but the current is the worst since Roosevelt.
and its not about lowered expectations - I expect that he gets us the hell out of this mess. But realistically it cant happen in a few months time. It will take a while.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Touché. Good point. Maybe we should just rate the level of turd polish. They are, afterall, politicians. Bush set the bar pretty low...
Drakkon
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 8,401
- 1
- 0
You really can't expect that much out of a guy in the first 6 months....i mean you don't get out of a war in 6 months...you don't come back from an economic meltdown in 6 months. He hasn't "fixed" anything nor has he really made any of it worse - its possible it could still teeter either way in the future. I'd give him a neutral as there is no telling where we are at and there wont be anyway to tell for months i don't think.
He's done more damage in the first 4 months of his presidency as any other president has done in 4 years.
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
He says with zero explanation...
right - because in his short 4 months, he has done more damage than Bush how exactly?
Look, I wasn't a huge fan of Bush, but Obama is out of control and should be stopped.
What he did with Chrysler and GM was bad.
What he did with the banks was bad.
National Healthcare is bad.
Spending 12 trillion dollars is bad.
His environmental policies seem stupid.
I am still on the fence about Sotomayor but leaning towards her being a bad choice also.
He just hasn't really done anything good, he hasn't fixed the economy despite insane spending. It's actually become worse.
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
OK, but everything you mentioned is a matter of political opinion... and none of it did more damage than Bush. the only one that you can truly say is damaging is the spending, and that is primarily because of Bush, not worse than Bush.
If bush over spending is bad, how is more spending going to fix it or be better?
The housing market boom started leng before bush even got into office, so even he cant take full blame for that, he even tried to reign in freddy and fannie and that was slapped down by congress.
But nobody said Bush's overspending was the cause of our current problems? (probably because it had nothing to do with it) Beattie just trotted out a standard ultra-right list of talking points, it doesn't even really merit a response because it's pretty clear that he's made up his mind.
He lies more than any prezzer I ever saw. Makes Clinton look like George Washington. He's effectively pushing America over a cliff but the Springer/Oprah nation is too stupid to realize it (Obama speaks well and has nice shoes!"). Hes been horrifying on national security - almost a meltdown outside of a few things he keeps intact from past. He has signaled to the bad guys that he shares their contempt for America, and he's not going to interfere with them. Of course Israel is another story. If US survives Obama there will come a time in future people won't admit they voted for him. He's a tyrant behind the mask and people think he is loving them when he is only setting them up to be screwed. America is disintegrating and Obama was jumping from the frying pan into the fire. All the change has been for the worse aside from some pet issues like credit cards and student loans - the treats he uses to mesmerize the masses while he's sawing away at the foundation timbers.
If you actually believe the insane shit that you write, you should probably seek professional help as you appear to be suffering from paranoid delusions.
The president hates America? He's trying to destroy our country? We're melting down on national security? What planet are you living on? Do you realize how crazy you sound?
His spending was often noted a big problem, so the assumption was made. If Bush ruined the economy, what exactly did he do to ruin it?
Another thing, this whole 'credit card' thing is a load of crap. The whole 'our kids will repay our debt' thing is also a load of crap. Repay our debt to who? In the 1950s did we build cars, trucks, tanks, whatever and send them back in time to 1945 to pay ourselves back? The government does not have, nor would it ever need, a credit card in the way that we understand them.
You can worry about the devaluation of the dollar from excessive currency creation, but to think that we're somehow keeping ourselves afloat through a 'credit card' in the way that you and I have a credit card is completely nonsensical.
I think that the monetary policy encouraged by the Bush administration made it a lot easier to pile up bad debt, the poor regulation of investment banks that happened under his watch helped set this crisis in motion, things like that. The government racking up some debt in no way caused this mess. Not even close.
But for the most part Bush did not change any policy reguarding te housing industry and he did try to e reign in freddy and fanny and was shot down by congress.
So Bush tried to rre-egulate, but was stopped by congress.
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc
That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.
Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.
EDIT: I do not endorse his video or his other ideas about the economy though, Peter Schiff is a moron.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter