He's going down, down, down

[sprinter]

Trying to keep the illegals here doesn't seem to be helping BO any:

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/08/23/doh-hispanic-approval-for-obama-falls-to-all-time-low-despite-amnesty-move/

 

 

He is even making the Blacks unhappy:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-caucus-tired-making-excuses-obama

 

Looks like a one termer to me. Prime candidate for worst president ever.

[jpd80]

You do realize that a Gallup Poll is based on the opinions of roughly 3,500 people,

a sample size nowhere near 1% of registered voters..

Edited August 24, 2011 by jpd80

[grbeck]

The election is over a year away...as Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over until it's over."

 

The best scenario, in my book, is for him to squeak by with a bare-minimum victory, but the Republicans take over the Senate and increase their margin in the House of Representatives. One-party rule of the executive and legislative branches hasn't worked too well over the past 11 years, regardless of which party is in charge.

[jpd80]

The election is over a year away...as Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over until it's over."

 

The best scenario, in my book, is for him to squeak by with a bare-minimum victory, but the Republicans take over the Senate and increase their margin in the House of Representatives. One-party rule of the executive and legislative branches hasn't worked too well over the past 11 years, regardless of which party is in charge.

The best scenario is that both sides of politics work together and start reducing the deficit now.

[TomServo92]

The best scenario is that both sides of politics work together and start reducing the deficit now.

 

This! As an independent, I'm sick of the parties pointing fingers at each other.

[akirby]

This! As an independent, I'm sick of the parties pointing fingers at each other.

 

+1. All they want to do is get re-elected and beat the other party. It's like a frickin' high school football game.

 

In the meantime both parties want to spend your money - just on different things. And they don't want to cut spending.

 

That's why we have a tea party.

[grbeck]

The best scenario is that both sides of politics work together and start reducing the deficit now.

 

They aren't going to "work together" until both sides have enough leverage to force the other one to do so. This is most likely to happen when control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government is divided between the two parties.

Edited August 24, 2011 by grbeck

[Cocheese]

As jp said, it's a small sample size, so I'm not going to get too excited that most of the people that helped him in there, have learned their lesson, and won't make the same mistake twice. But judging by some of what I've heard on this board, I doubt that will happen.

 

Give it 12 months and see where everything is at. Obama should be a one termer, but he shouldn't have even been that, so we can't count on the right thing happening next time. And even with how vulnerable Obama is right now, the Republicans need to put up a real candidate, and not one who just reads some fancy lines off the teleprompter. American wants, and needs real change. It's clear the current guy isn't providing it, so time to find the one that will.

 

I just hope Ron Paul gets the chance he deserves.

[Ron W.]

I just hope Ron Paul gets the chance he deserves.

 

 

Makes 2 of us.

[suv_guy_19]

I'm not sure what good Ron Paul would do, considering the massive job losses that would come as a result of shrinking the federal government.

[fmccap]

I'm not sure what good Ron Paul would do, considering the massive job losses that would come as a result of shrinking the federal government.

Maybe create real jobs after getting rid of the overpaid worthless and unproductive government jobs.

[suv_guy_19]

Maybe create real jobs after getting rid of the overpaid worthless and unproductive government jobs.

 

In this environment? Not likely. What do you think would happen if suddenly hundreds of thousands if not millions of government employees got the pink slip? Actually, you don't really have to imagine it, as, at the state and municipal level, exactly that has been happening over the last two years.

 

The government probably does need to be shrunk...but not now.

[Ron W.]

Doing the right thing is wrong ?

 

I don't know if he or anybody can quickly change the situation, but I do beleive he would be a step in the right direction.

[DUCKRACER]

Trying to keep the illegals here doesn't seem to be helping BO any:

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/08/23/doh-hispanic-approval-for-obama-falls-to-all-time-low-despite-amnesty-move/

 

 

He is even making the Blacks unhappy:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-caucus-tired-making-excuses-obama

 

Looks like a one termer to me. Prime candidate for worst president ever.

 

 

From your keyboard to God's ears.

[suv_guy_19]

Doing the right thing is wrong ?

 

I don't know if he or anybody can quickly change the situation, but I do beleive he would be a step in the right direction.

 

How would eliminating jobs be a good thing right now?

[Roadtrip]

The election is over a year away...as Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over until it's over."

 

A Gallup survey released on August 17th had 71 percent of Americans disapproving of the way Obama is handling the economy, with 26 percent approving (which is a new low). In addition, the economy will need to add at least 250,000 net new jobs per month between now and November 2012, just to get the unemployment rate below 8 percent. Given the horrible economic news lately, in which the economy for the first two quarters was reported to be hovering near "stall speed" and threatening a new recession, there is little prospect for the economy to produce 3.5 million new jobs between now and election day.

 

Obama promised to announce his new jobs plan after he returns from his vacation at Martha's Vineyard. (If I were out of work right now, I would find this to be insulting.) His first jobs plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- aka the Stimulous Bill, originally estimated to cost $787 billion, but in reality, approached $1 trillion -- failed miserably. Obama will not get another expensive economic stimulous bill passed through this Congress, so his new jobs plan would have to entail a radical departure from his economic, tax, and regulatory positions. That's not likely to happen. And Obamacare, which is stifling job growth, is still out there.

 

Therefore, there is a high probability that a weak economy and high unemployment will be the top issues among voters in the months leading up to the election. And the national debt -- another top-of-mind issue -- just keeps on rising, with no sign of abating.

 

Yes, the election is over a year away, but two-thirds into his first term, it's apparent that Obama cannot campaign on his record so far, and he has offered nothing to indicate that he is willing to reverse course.

 

The best scenario, in my book, is for him to squeak by with a bare-minimum victory, but the Republicans take over the Senate and increase their margin in the House of Representatives. One-party rule of the executive and legislative branches hasn't worked too well over the past 11 years, regardless of which party is in charge.

 

I disagree. The Republicans in Congress got spanked in the 2006 election because of their failure to live up to their mission of limited government. (They probably got spanked because many Republican voters were too turned off to bother to show up to vote in the mid-term election.) Before the 2010 mid-term, some Republican incumbants lost in primaries because of the rising influence of the Tea Party Movement. Most of those who retained their seats got the message. Even before the 2010 election, not one Republican in Congress voted for Obamacare -- they were getting and reflecting their constituents' message. The message is abundantly clear: Stop the spending madness! I am no fan of John McCain as a politician, but I appreciated it when he accurately described this spending madness as "generational theft." It has to stop, and I have heard nothing from anyone in the Democrat party on what to do about the problem except to raise taxes on the rich, when the top 10 percent of income earners already pay 70 percent of federal tax revenue. No, to mangle a phrase from James Carville: It's the spending, stupid. Most of the current Republicans get this; most of the ones who don't will be challenged in the 2012 primaries. Count on it. The S&P credit-rating downgrade was a serious wake-up call (as well as a serious blemish on Obama's record).

 

At this juncture in our nation's history, the best scenario, in my book, is to rid our government of as many of the free-spending, free-lunch-believing Keynesian policy makers as possible. And that includes the current occupant of the Oval Office.

 

Also, there are at least three other things worthy of consideration:

 

1) It will be a cold day when Obama, in his second term, signs a repeal of Obamacare. Highly unpopular and destructive to the economy, the repeal of Obamacare will be a major plank on the 2012 Republican platform. I don't know whether you like Obamacare, but if you don't, then you shouldn't want him reelected -- to the extent you want Obamacare repealed.

 

2) Do you really want a second-term Obama to nominate even more incompetent hacks to the Supreme Court, such as he did in his first term with Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor?

 

3) Are you entirely satisfied with Obama's judgment regarding his selection of key cabinet appointees, such as the likes of Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton?

 

When our country had one-party rule during the last eleven years, the national debt and the deficit were not top-of-mind issues among voters. The Tea Party people had yet to emerge. (I credit Rick Santelli of CNBC with his

on February 19, 2009 with getting the ball rolling for the Tea Party movement.) Thanks to the Tea Party movement, I would submit that in the present environment, no politician -- outside of safe districts in liberal enclaves -- is immune to voter scorn over excess government spending. And as he has demonstrated so far, President Barack Obama has no desire to cut back on spending. To the contrary, Republican congressional, senatorial, and presidential candidates have gotten and embraced the message -- the message that is resonating: It's the spending, stupid. To that end, in the current state of the economy and our national debt, I'll take a Republican majority in both houses and the executive branch every day of the week. The Democrats hate the Tea Party message, which is all the more reason to vote them out of office. Edited August 25, 2011 by Roadtrip

[RangerM]

How would eliminating jobs be a good thing right now?

Eliminating costs or overhead would be a good thing......right now.

 

Yes, there are human beings that would be affected. BUT, there are more human beings affected by the drag on the economy.

[suv_guy_19]

Eliminating costs or overhead would be a good thing......right now.

 

 

Borrowed money isn't costing the current economy anything. In fact, it's growing the current economy.

 

 

[RangerM]

2) Do you really want a second-term Obama to nominate even more incompetent hacks to the Supreme Court, such as he did in his first term with Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor?

Unfortunately there are people more concerned about looks (read: intangibles) than substance. That was why I enjoyed the hearings for John Roberts. It was obvious he was the smartest guy with a microphone.

3) Are you entirely satisfied with Obama's judgment regarding his selection of key cabinet appointees, such as the likes of Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton?

I'm no fan, but for the most part, I think Hillary has done a decent job (maybe I base that on my low expectations, though). The other two have been wastes of space.

The Democrats hate the Tea Party message, which is all the more reason to vote them out of office.

The charge of racism is made against the Tea Party so much, that I think people are realizing there isn't a cogent argument against them.

 

I heard Dennis Prager ask the other day, "If there were suddenly no black people in America, would the Tea Party then be o.k. with government spending?"

 

So far, I haven't heard anyone make that case.

[RangerM]

Borrowed money isn't costing the current economy anything. In fact, it's growing the current economy.

So how long does the (spending) party go on, and how bad of a (debt) hangover should we be prepared to deal with?

 

I understand that people borrrow money to grow businesses, but government doesn't generate a profit.

 

To me, this makes as much sense as saying that Food Stamps/Welfare grows an economy. It ignores the fact that the recipients aren't producing anything.

[suv_guy_19]

So how long does the (spending) party go on, and how bad of a (debt) hangover should we be prepared to deal with?

 

One that's big enough to allow the private sector to take over and actually start growing things.

 

I understand that people borrrow money to grow businesses, but government doesn't generate a profit.

 

Not a profit, but it does generate economic activity, especially when it's using money that wouldn't otherwise be in the system.

 

To me, this makes as much sense as saying that Food Stamps/Welfare grows an economy. It ignores the fact that the recipients aren't producing anything.

 

They do grow the economy...when the government is paying for them with deficit financing. The US government forgot that in order for this to work, you have to save in good times, and spend in bad times. They were spending in good times, and that's the only reason that there's a problem with the deficit today. That, btw, isn't Obama's fault...even though I think he's the next thing to incompetent when it comes to being a leader.

[RangerM]

One that's big enough to allow the private sector to take over and actually start growing things.

This seems to be the Paul Krugman argument. Problem is, the private sector isn't taking over. Why isn't it working?

Not a profit, but it does generate economic activity, especially when it's using money that wouldn't otherwise be in the system.

Economic activity-in and of itself-means little if it doesn't provide value to the economy. Trade provides value to both parties. Welfare trades money for what?

They do grow the economy...when the government is paying for them with deficit financing. The US government forgot that in order for this to work, you have to save in good times, and spend in bad times. They were spending in good times, and that's the only reason that there's a problem with the deficit today. That, btw, isn't Obama's fault...even though I think he's the next thing to incompetent when it comes to being a leader.

Again, the government is trading money (taken from producers) and traded (with non-producers) for what? I'm not arguing against welfare, but I am arguing against the idea that it grows an economy.

 

I'm beyond blaming Obama for anything. At this point, any anger I had about his legislative agenda, or the way he's handled things is long gone.

 

As far as I'm concerned, his Presidency is just getting sad.

[suv_guy_19]

This seems to be the Paul Krugman argument. Problem is, the private sector isn't taking over. Why isn't it working?

 

That's a rather excellent question. You should probably ask Krugman, since I don't have the answer.

 

Economic activity-in and of itself-means little if it doesn't provide value to the economy. Trade provides value to both parties. Welfare trades money for what?

 

For services and goods. It keeps the economy going and increases demand for trades when the demand otherwise doesn't exist. The hops is that real demand will return shortly. I sure as hell hope so, because Canada, which barely suffered the last recession (in comparison to the US) appears poised to slip into recession as a result of US weakness.

 

Again, the government is trading money (taken from producers) and traded (with non-producers) for what? I'm not arguing against welfare, but I am arguing against the idea that it grows an economy.

 

It grows an economy when the government is running deficits, because money that otherwise wouldn't be in the economy is being introduced. I suppose that's it's a kind of artificial demand.

 

I'm beyond blaming Obama for anything. At this point, any anger I had about his legislative agenda, or the way he's handled things is long gone.

 

As far as I'm concerned, his Presidency is just getting sad.

 

No argument there. He never should have been president, and I'm hoping that he either learns how to be one real quick, or loses the next election. There isn't much he can do right now, but he can lead. I'm not sure any of us can survive another 18 months of this.

 

 

 

[retro-man]

I don't know about any of you, but when we started to slip into the Abyss (that was in 2007 - 2008 just to refresh your memory), my own perception - untutored at that point by a constant barrage of internet bickering - informed only by my own reading, was that - and I'll use my own words here: "the house of cards" (which some of you may recall I was talking about as early as 2000) "is collapsing", and "we are going all the way back to 1955" meaning our real, actual standard of living is closer to a 1,100 sf house with a one car garage with one car in it, and an overseas trip maybe twice in a lifetime - for regular middle class folks, and "the market is going to hit 5500 before we're through (haven't realized that one yet). Let me tell you, what started then was not a recession. It was another great depression, and would resemble the previous one in every way if the social safety nets that were put in place during that time had not been in place. And we can expect it to take every bit as long to resolve as the Great Depression did. What we are seeing are the combined effects of 30 years of globalization, financialization, deregulation, and union-busting. 30 years of worshiping Wall Street, and look what it has gotten us. Businesses are struggling because their customer base has dried up. Not because their taxes are too high.

 

Yes I have my disappointments with Obama:

- He caved on single payer. We really needed that.

- He didn't do an effective job calling out his opponents on the debt ceiling fracas (which was 95% political and 5% financial)

- He hasn't gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan or closed GITMO.

- He started more shit in Libya

- He gave key economic positions to damn Goldman Sachs people (I'd rather see players from the ivory towers of academia than a revolving door with the same Wall Street scheisters who helped get us into this.

 

You sound as though you think 300,000,000 Americans would be eating daisies and farting rainbows right now if only McCain / Palin had taken office in January of 2009. Is that what you believe?

 

[edit in] and you think Rick Perry or Sarah Palin will be a superior choice in '12? Your party has a sorry history of weeding out the ones that could really do a decent job (Bob Dole, McCain in 2000) and advancing sound-bite, faux folksy bobble-heads to the front.

Edited August 25, 2011 by retro-man

[xr7g428]

Retro, Could you please tell us what you believe made up the individual cards?

 

I read this:

 

What we are seeing are the combined effects of 30 years of globalization, financialization, deregulation, and union-busting. 30 years of worshiping Wall Street,

 

I know that those are your favorite "boogie man" choices, In the extreme abstract, I sort of get it, but the same could be said about the failure of education, the decline of the two parent household, or a dozen other things.

 

For example do you think that buying $700 billion in imported oil might have been a consideration? How about requiring the GSE's to accept sub prime mortgages as if they were worth the paper they were written on? Or even tax policy that made the gains from personal real estate tax exempt? Tax revenues were growing like crazy, but government spending grew even faster, did that have anything to do with it?

 

I am not asking you to agree with the above, but you have to have concrete causes to have concrete fixes.

 

I am also puzzled about one thing you keep interjecting:

and an overseas trip maybe twice in a lifetime - for regular middle class folks,

The only way the middle class traveled overseas was if they were in a troop ship going to Viet Nam. Where are you coming up with this notion?