# Obama



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

After the SOTU address and his first year in office ...


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Although I dislike Obama and believe he will, ultimately, be an epic failure, in fairness, it is way too early to say.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not seeing the anarchist option -- total disaster, which is entirely average.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

Much better than the fascist right wing traitor before him.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

His major policies are based upon past failed policies, thus I can easily deduce he won't be a good president. Bush 2.0.



> Much better than the fascist right wing traitor before him.


You mean the war president who bailed out Wall St and helped create a massive bubble in the economy? The one who spent way too much, increased the deficit, let the dollar lose value and expanded the government greatly? Obama is very different then....


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Soooo tempted to click "failure"...but I'll take the high road and say it's too early to tell. Good thing he's in shape. He's got a lot of ground to cover in his race to the center. 

Even though I've been disappointed in every POTUS since Reagan, I don't want any of them to be failures. No good comes out of failure.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sometimes the only way to learn a lesson is to try and fail. Obama's failure is inevitable. Hopefully the lesson will stick this time.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Obama's failure is inevitable.


Now there is a change....Turkey offering a negative comment about a democrat.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

The answer seems to be create revolutionary, new industries... Easier said than done! If this is, indeed, his main plan (to save the economy), we're royally screwed.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

Scoundrel said:


> The answer seems to be create revolutionary, new industries... Easier said than done! If this is, indeed, his main plan (to save the economy), we're royally screwed.


Didn't the Soviet Union try that?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

nick.mccann said:


> Didn't the Soviet Union try that?


Not really. They got their "revolution" part down pretty well but missed the "ary," certainly didn't do much "new" and had trouble being industrious much less putting forth "industries."

As the old joke went, if the Soviets were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, within a year there would be a shortage of sand.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I'll take the high road and say it's too early to tell.


I like that choice.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

smujd said:


> Although I dislike Obama and believe he will, ultimately, be an epic failure, in fairness, it is way too early to say.


Agree.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I am definitely not his most ardent supporter but good grief, it's only been one year. Way too early right now.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

The question was "what is your perception"? It is not too early to have a perception, is it? Good grief.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

I thought the speech was incredibly long. But Obama is such a gifted speaker that he pulled it off--just barely. (Likewise, Governor McDonnell's speech afterward was also very well executed.)

In terms of content: Again, I think he did a great job.

My real disappointment was that he said he "doesn't want to punish the [investment] banks." Why the hell not? These jerks get huge bonuses while the rest of us pay for those bonuses with our taxpayer dollars.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> My real disappointment was that he said he "doesn't want to punish the [investment] banks." Why the hell not? These jerks get huge bonuses while the rest of us pay for those bonuses with our taxpayer dollars.


Because then people would want his Chief of Staff to do jail time.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I elected it's too early to tell. However, during the SOTU address, as I watched those myopic a**holes we've elected to Congress, I found myself wondering if anyone, serving in the Presidency, could be successful?


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

This is why I respect our President. Agree or disagree with him, Bush never really made an attempt to engage "the other side" like this: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32239.html

I make no real pretense about the fact that I am a Democrat. Republicans these days seem to think that Democrats are all closet Bolshevics. Democrats, for their part, generally to feel that Republicans are all closet fascists. I think that all of us, in reality, want the US to carry on with the status quo, only with higher employment.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I think that all of us, in reality, want the US to carry on with the status quo, only with higher employment.


The status quo is causing unemployment.

When you accept this basic fact, you'll be one step closer to emotional adulthood.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Zot! said:


> This is why I respect our President. Agree or disagree with him, Bush never really made an attempt to engage "the other side" like this: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32239.html
> 
> I make no real pretense about the fact that I am a Democrat. Republicans these days seem to think that Democrats are all closet Bolshevics. Democrats, for their part, generally to feel that Republicans are all closet fascists. I think that all of us, in reality, want the US to carry on with the status quo, only with higher employment.


I watched the entire clip and saw others on TV last night.

I didn't see anything there that gave any indication of compromise or working together. Lots of sparring and lip service to status quo, yada yada yada.

We did get to hear Obama make accusations towards some of the people present. I heard him complain about "how things are done" [in Washington], but nowhere did he indicate that he or his administration bears any part of the responsibility for the current state of political affairs. Had he offered that he and his people needed to and were going to conduct themselves better, it might have given me some small hope.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And when the Republicans suggested that maybe he was sincere, but that the Democrat leadership in the house would not work together President Obama dismissed that out-of-hand. As long as he defends Pelosi he is not going to be taken seriously as bipartisan.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Was out for a little drive tonight and saw this thread so I thought I'd pull over and take a look-see. Imagine my surprise to find there are folks here who actually dislike the President. Geez go figure. What's up with that? ​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

sowilson said:


> Much better than the fascist right wing traitor before him.


Traitor? Really? How did he betray the country? Now, I disagree with a lot of his policy. Primarily because it was far too liberal, but betraying the United States some how?



AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> My real disappointment was that he said he "doesn't want to punish the [investment] banks." Why the hell not? These jerks get huge bonuses while the rest of us pay for those bonuses with our taxpayer dollars.


You realize that by limited a CEO's pay, despite being far outside the reach our government is suppose to have, simply causes quality executives to go to non-regulated industries.

My question is why we ever bailed out the banks in the first place. The only reason I can tell is the government's guilt over causing the meltdown with their mandatory loans and weak dollar policies.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> You realize that by limited a CEO's pay....causes quality executives to go to non-regulated industries.


No. I didn't realize that, probably because it's one of those made-up axioms the greedier like to foist. High salary begat Rick Wagner. Low salary ($0 at the start) begat Steve Jobs. The best of the tippy-top aren't always in it for the cash. Continue though to wave the me-first, money-first banner because even in these toughest of times there are those here who will cheer you on.

Like this next poster...(???)​


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The civil tone of this board prohibits me from speaking the truth about Obama.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> No. I didn't realize that, probably because it's one of those made-up axioms the greedier like to foist. High salary begat Rick Wagner. Low salary ($0 at the start) begat Steve Jobs. The best of the tippy-top aren't always in it for the cash. Continue though to wave the me-first, money-first banner because even in these toughest of times there are those here who will cheer you on.
> 
> Like this next poster...(???)​


So you're saying if the federal government decided to set Steve Jobs' salary to $100k/yr or less he would stay the CEO of Apple? He wouldn't retire or just move to another company that isn't regulated?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> The civil tone of this board prohibits me from speaking the truth about Obama.


Well why not momentarily unleash yourself from that civil tone and tell us all the "truth'" about Obama since you apparently have access to info that the rest of us stupid clucks here don't have.​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> So you're saying if the federal government decided to set Steve Jobs' salary to $100k/yr or less he would stay the CEO of Apple? He wouldn't retire or just move to another company that isn't regulated?


Before we move on to whether or not what you say I'm saying is what I'm actually saying, examine please your clause_ if the federal government decided to set Steve Jobs salary, etc._

You and Glenn Beck may think that's going to happen, but it's not. IT related industries are a boon to this society and its economy; Wall Street's contributions are iffy or worse since they single-handedly brought down the US and world economies, got bailed out by you and me and are now showering themselves with frankincense and myrrh while the world continues to dig itself out from beneath the crap they unloaded.

I'm not sure whether or not their pay should be capped, but I'm pretty sure they should be in jail.
​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Before we move on to whether or not what you say I'm saying is what I'm actually saying, examine please your clause_ if the federal government decided to set Steve Jobs salary, etc._
> 
> You and Glenn Beck may think that's going to happen, but it's not. IT related industries are a boon to this society and its economy; Wall Street's contributions are iffy or worse since they single-handedly brought down the US and world economies, got bailed out by you and me and are now showering themselves with frankincense and myrrh while the world continues to dig itself out from beneath the crap they unloaded.
> 
> ...


So you're saying it is okay to regulate pay in one industry and not another?

Try reading _The Housing Boom and Bust_ by Thomas Sowell. You'll find that indeed it wasn't Wall Street that doomed us, but rather the politicians pulling their strings. Did you know that the federal government can prevent a bank from building a branch for absolutely no reason. So they're forced to bow to the whims of politicians and the ideal of "affordable housing." What is affordable housing anyway

For example, here, people making half what I make in a year can afford apartments I can't thanks to "affordable housing" initiatives.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> So you're saying it is okay to regulate pay in one industry and not another?
> 
> Try reading _The Housing Boom and Bust_ by Thomas Sowell. You'll find that indeed it wasn't Wall Street that doomed us, but rather the politicians pulling their strings. Did you know that the federal government can prevent a bank from building a branch for absolutely no reason. So they're forced to bow to the whims of politicians and the ideal of "affordable housing." What is affordable housing anyway
> 
> For example, here, people making half what I make in a year can afford apartments I can't thanks to "affordable housing" initiatives.


It was Washington *and *Wall St. Without excess artificial credit the bubble would have been impossible. However many banks went crazy and ignored laws and/or common sense. CDO's that were rated AAA without having anything that is actually AAA in them. No doc loans, and loaning money to people they know could never pay it back just so they could package it up and resale it to an investor so they are stuck with the loss. Don't forget the total derivative market is around 700 trillion.

Now the government and Wall st. are back at it again with the dollar being the carry trade. Copious amounts of money are being borrowed a low rates to speculate across the globe. When that carry trade unwinds it will probably be very detrimental for the forex markets and equities around the world. Last year at the height of a carry trade unwinding we saw the dollar at short term highs(89) and the market at lows(Dow around 6500).

The only way I see us getting out of the carry trade without a huge loss in equities is if the government pumps a lot of money into the market to counteract the carry trade unwinding. In the long run that would be horrible but in the short it would prop the market up and let the dollar rise at the same time.


----------

