WHY OBAMA WILL WIN in '12
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, it can!
Obama has already shown a total desire to 'lead from behind'. He is ineffectual. We need a LEADER right now.
It's just a theory that I happen to agree with; I understand that it's just a theory, though. I shudder to think if McCain had won, and instead of spending at a time when every business was constricting, we just pursued something like tax cuts. There is a time for tax cuts, and I believe in a lower rate in general, but that wasn't one of them.
As for the 1st stimulus being put to work in a more effective manner, no doubt that's true, but how much more time would that have taken? I think too much.
My ideal would actually be to see another stimulus go through - a better one - and then in a few years time, see a wholesale overhaul of the way we spend money, and large cuts that will eventually lower our debt and enable us to balance our budget without tax increases. I know the latter won't be Obama....
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Right, because despite his track record of opposing the Bush tax cuts, McCain would simply have gone and cut taxes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and yet the Obama stimulus plan was largely tax cuts and bailouts to the states. I agree that it wasn't the right approach. That money should have been spent on infrastructure jobs. Ironically it is now, $3 Trillion + in deficit spending later that the Obama admin is now touting the correct path. The problem is, we cannot afford to do so now with all of the waste of the past 5 years (actually more like 40, but the last five in particular)
Like you said, all we can do is speculate on what might have happened. Personally, I don't think the markets or the people needed the cash injected immediately. I think they just needed to see that something was being done to correct the problems. We got a partial bandaid rather than a plan. While the market appreciated the bandaid to be certain, an infrastructure buildout plan could have been presented just as fast, though implementation would obviously have been slower. It is my contention that this would have been far better than what occurred.
It would have told those losing jobs.... hey... jobs coming soon. Likewise, businesses seeing that jobs would be added for infrastructure would have been more assured of their own future growth prospects as more consumers working = more money being spent by consumers in a sustained and more predictable manner.
IF another stimulus is to be done... it CANNOT be the crap he is lining up right now. The increase to food stamps, continuation of the 2% reduction in SS etc... is NOT going to work. It has to be true Keynesian stimulus. Take future spending from 2014-2016 on infrastructure and spend it now. That would likely be the only stimulus at this point that would work. One such 'man to the moon' initiative that would have dramatic effects on our long term viability and prosperity would be to convert our transportation system over to predominantly nat gas.
Obviously I am a proponent of cleaning up our tax code, most here (with Mott being the exception) understand the flat tax proposal I have presented over the past four plus years on this site.
In addition we need to eliminate a lot of the bureaucratic mess, while reenacting those regulations that proved functional and necessary. We need simple basic rules for the mortgage industry. We need simplification of the tax code. We need the 'man to the moon' initiative (like converting transportation to primarily nat gas consumption), we need a STRONG dollar policy (not weak)
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
why are you so sensitive about it?.....for that matter, why are you so afraid people will remember who you are?.......
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Here's why Obama will win:
I disagree, he is doing everything necessary to lead, but to lead you have to have someone willing to follow and the opposition has been such bad losers that they have blocked every effort.
The President has led us away from an economic cliff, obtained a health care fix that no president going back to T. Roosevelt has been able to do. Has led the effort to successfully capture OBL, something Clinton and Bush were unable to accomplish. He has led us out of Iraq as proimsed and hept the pressure up in Afganistan, something else he promised. He has done all of this without an assault on our civil rights and witout a trying to jam a religous crusaide down the throats of the American people. I have a lot of respect for what he has accomplished.
So, no, I dont agree that the president is not a from behind leader.
Now, the Republicans are likely to put up someone like R. Perry who after supporting Al Gore and being his Texas Chariman, then persued an adenga to theocratize Texas solely to sell to voters. The man has demonstrated that 1) he does not understand the Constitution or 2) is willing to sell out the Constitution for votes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... then you will surely be able to show us his jobs plan, his budget plan, his deficit reduction plan???
I mean, we are over two years in.... surely you can provide these basic plans that Obama the 'leader' has provided???
LOL.... you do realize we are heading TOWARD the cliff again right now, not away from it?
The health care bill is a fiasco at best. It will do nothing to address the long term escalation of rising health care costs.
He made a gutsy call on taking out Osama, no question.... but he didn't lead that effort. He gave the GO. That was it.
Iraq.... still there. Afghanistan... escalated. Libya... new one. Gitmo... still open.
Show me a President that HAS tried to jam a religious crusade down the throats of the American people. I can certainly show you a President that has tried to cram his party's ill conceived health care ideology down the throats of Americans.
He has accomplished little in 2.5 years. Unemployment is still over 9%. GDP growth is anemic at best.
Certainly your prerogative to disagree... but you are one of few who believe that.
Please provide us links to support the above assertions.
Had McCain, Romney or many others been elected we would have persued almost exactly the same corse of action the President led us upon. Small differences here and there... Likely the Bush Tax cuts would have been alowed to expire because they would have been supported by there party. We would be in about the same situation we are in currently except the Democrats would be crying and attacking the president and not the Republicans.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Here is a chart:
According to SF, this shows that we are heading towards the cliff, not away from it, and that GDP growth has been "anemic at best." Now, I'm not suggesting that Obama's policies are awesome, they aren't, but let's at least base our criticisms on reality.
2009q1 -6.7
2009q2 -0.7
2009q3 1.7
2009q4 3.8
2010q1 3.9
2010q2 3.8
2010q3 2.5
2010q4 2.3
2011q1 0.4
2011q2 1.3
LMAO.... No... the DECLINING growth rate in GDP shows we are. The persistently high unemployment rate shows we are. The problems with our debt show we are. Getting a dead cat bounce in GDP from the aftermath of a severe recession is normal. Flat lining afterward is a sign that we are in trouble.
Also.... GDP growth HAS been anemic.
GDP hasn't been anemic, it just hasn't been as high as it needs to be to constitute a real recovery. I agree that GDP growth is slowing and that is bad, but pretending that we are heading toward a cliff, not away from it just isn't the case.
Moreover, were we to adopt the spending cuts that you support, GDP growth would slow even further (as it has in the Eurozone).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
2010q1 3.9
2010q2 3.8
2010q3 2.5
2010q4 2.3
2011q1 0.4
2011q2 1.3
0.4 is ANEMIC growth
1.3 is ANEMIC growth
The trend is NEGATIVE over the past 6 quarters. In case you hadn't noticed... that is a DOWNWARD movement in the rate of growth. When the growth rate slows over a prolonged period of time, it shows we are heading DOWN.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As for the spending cuts.... yes, by all means... keep on spending and outspending... that solves everything.
While GDP may slow or even go negative, it is pain that we must go through to recover properly. Going through slow growth or negative growth WITHOUT any long term solutions is quite simply, retarded.... and that is exactly what we are doing under your Masters 'leadership'
While GDP may slow or even go negative, it is pain that we must go through to recover properly. Going through slow growth or negative growth WITHOUT any long term solutions is quite simply, retarded.... and that is exactly what we are doing under your Masters 'leadership'
Short term real interest rates are negative. We can borrow money essentially for free. We should take advantage of it.
Long term solutions to what? We don't need long term solutions to slow growth. We need short term solutions to close the output gap. The private sector ought to be able to bring about sustained long term growth once the economy is humming again.
Edit: And I don't understand why you are bitching about anemic growth on the one hand, and saying we have to go through the pain of slow or negative growth on the other all while promoting policies that will ensure slow or negative growth on the other
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
You're the only one who doesn't.
Do you think he is electable, I mean, come on, there are a lot of people who will not vote for a Mormon, it is ridiculous, but nonetheless, it is reality.
Thanks, Romney is going to have a hard time over coming his pro abortion, pro healthcare stances, plus being a Bishop of the LDS. The hard Christian right won't follow and Christie's, I won't run words will be used against him, he will turn ot to be a proven liar. Paul Ryan will get pummeled!
Perry is not electable, it is just too soon after Bush for another Texan, he is young, maybe in 2016...