Ha...you sure about that?
May get better for you and where you live, but the entire MidWest is ed.
Now, I am sure that doesnt bother you and your ilk, but newsflash, the MidWest is a much larger population than the South/SouthWest.
it'll get better because of it's cyclical nature. I come from the standpoint that the President gets to much credit when it goes well and to much blame when it doesn't. Obama's been on the job 10 months and his policies haven't been in place long enough to make a difference (good or bad) so to place the blame on him soley is intellectually dishonest. Of course many on this board don't care that they are hypocrites so they will proceed with 'it's bad because it's obama' ranting.
Provide a link to the promises you're referencing?
What would you have had Obama do differently on the economic front? Would you have ignored the other situations and just focused on the economy full time?
Yes.
But I can't print money.
Thats a fair question and one that I obviously will not answer with any semblance of grace seeing as I am not privy to the daily POTUS briefings that Bush and Obama are/were.
But, on my terms and in my order of business, yes, I would have concentrated my efforts full time on the employment of my countrymen through tax incentives to businesses who hire (not retain) employees. I would pull together the leaders of every major, declining industry in the nation, those industries that are losing jobs to other countries, and put together a plan to keep them level through tax breaks up to even 100%.
Obviously, there is much more to the above than I care to explain seeing as this is a message board and I am not the POTUS.
I would have told Afghanistan and Iraq to go straight themselves, wholesale and had immediate pull back of every troop in either theatre of war, no questions asked save for the few exceptions where some minor presence could help in the training and tactics of the natives.
Healthcare is a complete and utter waste of time and resource of the President in these economic times. For this to be at the forefront of politics speaks to the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country.
Same with this absolutely ing ridiculous Climate Change bull . Is the Earth heating, cooling, staying same? Are we to blame? The better question right now is, do I give a ? People are out of work, people are starving, costs more now than it ever did, record corporate profits from energy companies, troops dying in foreign lands with an unnamed, unflagged enemy, unemployment is only rising, the dollar is tanking...the list of more immediate concerns is a daunting one on its own without letting some far-fetched, unconfirmed agenda like global climate change taking our leadership's eye of the perverbial ball.
Alternate energy sources should be sold on its merits, not the immediacy of a global climate catastrophe. Movies, media, schools, politicians, people everywhere spewing their impending doom bull all over the place as if this...non-issue is even an important one at this time.
To be plain...yes, as the POTUS I would have concentrated my efforts on the economy and unemployment almost solely. Until my people were back to work, making money and paying less for the same as 6 years ago, the rest of the world can un- itself on its own, thank you very much.
Better yet, the world can itself. Saves us the cost, really.
Ok, and when you see reports from both public and private economic groups saying that the recession and unemployment would be worse without the stimulus what do you say, mogro?
I say that ex post projections have little or no value, that's why I don't even care to see them. I'd add that the organizations that publish those ex post projections are the biggest beneficiaries of this increase in government spending (that avoided public sector bureaucrats from being fired and helped ins utions from the financial sector).
But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Obama either failed in his assessment of the economic situation, in his assessment of the impact of his economic policies or, as I suspect, in both. In any case, he failed. My question is if Obama's failure and not only the economic situation de per si is an explaining factor for the poll results.
I never thought that Obama could fix everything in America in just 1 year. It's not realistic. However, Obama came off in the 2008 presidential election as a quick fixer and/or miracle worker. Many Obama voters and supporters believed that he was going to fix things really fast in America. Sad but true.
Obama seems clueless on the economy. He holds a "jobs summit", but doesn't include the Chamber of Commerce; however Gov. Granholm (Michigan) is there. Tell me - what the does she know about creating jobs? Her state is a hole and was in a recession long before any other state. And Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
And now Obama is over in Europe at this phony climate summit and then he goes to accept his (undeserved) Nobel Peace Prize. It's all about him - he's the boy king.
How long is reasonable amount of time for his policies to work?
The funny thing is even if the economy did come back in a year or two, as soon as it does BamBam is itching at the opportunity to unleash his Progressive Wet Dream thus hammering the economy back down
Have fun at Copenhagen braaaaaaaaah.
They will never work. If you want to know the amount of time he predicted for his policies to work and the time frame they were designed to impact, please refer to the links in this post (or just read the graph and the quotes):
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...4&postcount=32
Obama said that if nothing was done the unemployment rate could reach 2 digits. Could.
So, this brilliant genius who believes that he's so smart and prescient that he can take other people's money and then use it in such a shrewd way in order to "fix the economy", "re-build America" and other fantasies, decided to do something... and the unemployment rate quickly climbs to a 2 digit number. I'm not surprised and no sane person should be. If Obama was so skilled in the art of investing as he believes he is, he would be a mega-hyper-billionaire.
I'd vote for you.
The world ing itself would put gas @ $50 but beggars can't be choosers.
Just tell the enviro-wackos to go f _ _ k themselves and let the oil companies drill and build refineries here in the states. There's plenty of oil for our own needs.
So if the unemployment rate goes down into the single digits next year would you give his policies credit?
Why should I? Accordingly to him, the unemployment rate would have never gone above 9% if he hadn't enacted his policies! Can't you read a graph?
Nice goal post moving going on in here.
How many completely new refineries were applied to be built in the last twenty years?
I dont feel thats the answer to energy problems/prices/shortages either.
Its all well and good that the US has untapped oil sources under its soil/oceans, but really now, its just a stop-gap measure, not a solution.
Alternative energy, IMO, should be sold on its own merits. I personally have investigated into installing a small geo-thermal unit for my property "up north" as a means to be independant from the grid.
I consider this not because the Earth is going to like me more, but that in the long run, the cost of installation and maintenance of a turbine is far lower than getting a bill every month for the rest of your ever-loving life. Especially if you have it installed before the impending energy crisis unfolds (its only a matter of time before natural gas, coal, oil and other fossil fuels become more and more expensive through shortages and the development of larger, up coming nations like China and India. Couple this fact with the ensuing speculative market surrounding commodities and its going to make the Enron-California energy scandal look very small by comparison).
Oh well, oh well.
So his policies aren't responsible for unemployment getting to double digits, but if it goes under , then BHO gets the credit?
Speaking of untapped oil reserves, how do you feel about the N. Pole reserves? Should we sit around and let Russia and others take all claims or should we be getting our percentage or all of it? If so, with what steps would you be comfortable with? I think we should at the least, get a percent of the area that Alaska covers. Nothing off the table, maintaining these positions.
Um, what? Of course these projections have value. They come from all range of economic firms including the one that provided McCain with his economic consulting. I don't see how they have anything to gain from painting a forecast one way or another but rather in being accurate
Of course its not irrelevant. The point the administration was trying to make was not that unemployment was sure to come in at this percentage with or without the package but rather that the package would make the situation better than it would have been otherwise and this has been confirmed.But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Obama either failed in his assessment of the economic situation, in his assessment of the impact of his economic policies or, as I suspect, in both. In any case, he failed. My question is if Obama's failure and not only the economic situation de per si is an explaining factor for the poll results.
This is one of your weakest posts of all time and the point to which you'll go to point out how much you dislike Obama is now being revealed to all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
