Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days

And you think socialism is better?

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher

 

I'm sorry, but what is one man's disaster is another man's salvation. Disaster to you, salvation to me.

 

Of course socialism would be better.

Your quote is stupid.

 

Why would it be better?

Why is it stupid?

Sounds accurate to me.

 

Probably depends who actually did what. The right-wing really did spend 30 years and millions of dollars deliberately building a giant network of biased sources, for instance. Bush really is responsible for the disaster in Iraq and the Great Bush Recession, among other nasty things. Republicans really are obstructionists and have openly admitted it since 2007. The Koch brothers really are the "brains" and money behind many right-wing initiatives. The TEA Party really is a bunch of hard-core ideologues who have turned the House into a completely dysfunctional mess that even Republican leaders don't have a leash on. So yes, a very great deal is the fault of the people and groups you listed.

 

If Bush is really is responsible for the disaster in Iraq and the great recession, among other nasty things, why has Barack Obama continued these same identical policies for the 33 months he as been president?

I dare you to try and answer this question!

 

Exactly.

There is ZERO reason could not have ordered every U.S. soldier out of Iraq the second he took office.

He didn't...many are STILL there and HUGELY expanded the War in Afghanistan.


- He condemned Gitmo and could have closed it immediately when he took office.

He didn't...it's STILL open.


- He has had 33 months to 'fix' the economy.

He didn't...the unemployment rate is 9.1% (it was 7.8% when he took over), the housing market continues to decline and America is on the verge of potentially another recession.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp


- He condemned the deficits that Bush Jr. ran - did he reduce the deficit?

He didn't...he has increased the debt DRAMATICALLY.


Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 - YouTube

 

This is an example of just making crap up as one goes along. Franklin Rianes was ousted in late 2004. The infamous S.190 was introduced in hopes of capitalizing on the scandal in early 2005. OFHEO meanwhile imposed program and portfolio limits until the financial situation was resolved. Fannie agreed to restate its income in 2006. By that time, its market share had dropped below 25% from above 70% early in the decade. So-called "private labels" had jumped in to pick up the rest. The Bush adminstration achieved administratively what it could not accomplish legislatively.

Meanwhile, no conventional mortgages are backed up by anything but the borrower's ability to repay. As part of administration efforts to hamstring the GSE's, OFHEO had complained that Fannie's reserves on its guaranteed MBS pools were not adequate, while regularly reporting that they were.

 

There has never been a Democrat or Republican in any Congress whose power and influence have come anywhere even close to matching those of the President of the United States. This is one of the all-time "Here's Your Sign" sorts of answers.

Just for context, new unemployment claims ran at about 600,000 per week during the "golden days" of the Bush-43 administration (the period in between the recessions), and at about 300,000 per week during the record low unemployment periods of the Clinton administration. So there you have sort of the recent extremes. Obama = much better than Bush, nowhere near as good as Clinton. Yet.

In his 32 quarters, Bush failed of beating 2% GDP growth fifteen (15) times. Maybe this Chimp of yours wasn't as much of an econ whiz-bang as you thought!

 

The typical loan that failed and ultimately caused the credit crisis was written between 2002 and 2006. No Democrats were in charge of anything. Republicans reaped as they sowed, and the rest of us took it in the shorts and will still be many years in the recovery.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
-- Joseph Stiglitz

 

Obama is a closet Republican for sure! He's a total ass kisser and not a leader whatsoever! I'm just starting to pay attention to politics again - I was shocked to read here how much more O has piled on the national debt... ouch!

 

<<<MOD EDIT: PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED>>>
Under an agreement first worked out between then Sen. Obama and Iraqi President Maliki, the level of US troops in Iraq has been drawn down from approximately 150,000 in January of 2009 to fewer than 50,000 today. All but a few hundred of the remaining troops are expected to be home before the end of this year, thus concluding perhaps the most bungled example of military adventurism since the charge of the Light Brigade.

An epic economic cataclysm known as the Great Bush Recession struck most of Earth begining in December of 2007. It hit a terrible low in September of 2008, with trillions of dollars worth of wealth disappearing, millions of people losing their jobs, and thousands of businesses closing their doors forever. Since January of 2009 however, the new leader of the USA has led and coordinated something called a Keynesian response. As the result, a turning point was already reached in June of 2009, and the economies of the world are now on a slow but steady path to recovery.

<<<MOD EDIT: DELETED QUOTE AND REPLY REMOVED>>>

 

Yes, there is. For one thing, you can't secure an evacuation if everyone is evacuating. For another thing, parameters applicable to the withdrawal are set down within bilateral agreements. For a third thing, strategic and logistical plans have to be developed and distributed. Bush did none of that. Obama actually began troop drawdowns before many thought he could, and right-wingers claimed he could never pull it off as planned. But he did.

Gitmo was ordered closed within a year on January 22, 2009, thus taking the base out of the glaring, terrorist-abetting spotlight Bush had put it in. The only reason any people are still there at all is that jerkwad Republicans have complained that all those correctly or incorrectly suspected of being a terrorist can easily escape from any of our supermax prisons and then run amok terrifying woman and children in every village and hamlet across America.

And headed for who knows where. Even with aggressive fiscal action that ended the recession by June of 2009, the unemployment rate exceeded 10% in October of that year before slowly heading back down. Now, we see some 1.5 million new jobs having been created in the past year. Bush used to LOSE that many every two months.

A house that sold for $140K in early 2009 would today sell for $140K. It would have sold for $175K in early 2008. You may have missed something.

Recovery-killing TP-Republicans are on the march alright. Wasn't it a good idea to elect THAT bunch!!!

Quick note for the clueless: Bush ran large deficits when he had no reason. Obama ran large deficits when he had no choice.

 

You are very correct, Markman.

This chart was very interesting.



With the Federal debt of $14.7 trillion amounting to $185,000 for every family of four, at some point we have to concede that the federal checkbook has its limits. Cuts in spending are only a start, other programs need to be abolished or radically changed.

 

I cant answer this in one post. However I can briefly outline. Socialism would be better because everyone would have a job, we would work shorter hours, we would all get healthcare, decent pensions, university education, decent housing and so on. There would be no hunger in the world and no war. There would be almost no crime, no need for police or prisons. Everyone would be more or less equal. People would have more freedom, more ability to learn new things. Everyone would be a part time politician, planner and worker. Religion would fade away. Equal rights for all. Parenting would improve and families would be stronger, even as the family was 'abolished'.

How would we do all this?

Well a socialist economy would take the best of capitalism and eliminate all the contradictions. When I say take the best I mean the technology and means of production. Then make it far more efficient.

For example in America 22% are unemployed, and probably a similar number do useless jobs or even destructive jobs. So you could double the workforce almost overnight. Just give everyone a job and make it a socially useful one. Turn the arms factories into green energy factories. Get the junk food companies making proper food. Get the marketing people doing something useful, we would no longer need them to do that.

So either you are producing twice as much or you cut the working week in half. Of course we would produce more to start, get the economy even more efficient, and then cut the working week while maintaining an improved living standard.

And top priority would be to end the environmental destruction capitalism is causing.

 

Why do you continue to post a chart you know is wrong?

Why do you repeatedly post knowing false information?

 

You forgot to add that 'you assume' all of this...you cannot know.

And I don't think you answered my other question?

Why is the following quote 'stupid' as you put it?

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
&#8213; Margaret Thatcher

I have found that that is exactly the problem with socialism. It's a nice thought...but in reality, it is INCREDIBLY expensive.

 

Actually as the Bush Recession shows, the problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's money, leaving too few people with enough income to buy anything.

 

You figure he's going to win the 2012 election, eh?

 

Countdown to a landslide.

I love the Tea Party. They have made sure conservatism is irrelevant for the next generation.

You do realize Cain isn't even running for president, but like Palin just wants a lucrative book deal. He's so not interested in it, he puts his drunken cronies in his ads as a joke.

 

Great countdown clock, texmaster!

The "commies" in this group are going to be in the depths of depression when this happens!

 

LOL. This bold 2012 talk seems to correlate strongly with right-wngers and their space-cadet notions having been beaten to a bloody pulp in some thread or other. Then it's time to whine. Yeah, we lost big time here, but we're going to win in 11/12. Well, first your are going to have to find people to run who aren't cuckoo. We saw what happens when you run cuckoo people last time. So far you have a dozen or so people already rejected onto the cuckoo pile. More are coming. You may simply run out of people by next summer. Then you're going to have to come up with some sort of actual platform to run on. One with actual ideas in it that you can make arguments for that people don't just laugh at. More tax cuts for the rich isn't going to be enough. Defund NPR isn't going to be enough. Cut spending isn't going to be enough. All of that will simply be laughed out of the arena and then you can have four more years of complaining that you only lost because the liberal MSM was biased against you. The bottom line here is that you guys better keep doing as many things as you possibly can to wreck the economy, because if that picks up even a little bit over the next year or so, you don't have a prayer.

 

Ha-Ha!

You are whistling past the grave yard, guy!

Obama is toast! By the way, would you and Harry Reid like some butter with that toast?

 

The left is cracking up right before our eyes. The Occupy movement is a microcosim of the left's melt down.