To say that Obama has been handling a mess is not the same as blaming Bush. And you are 100% correct, and I've said it many times in these discussions....the economic mess took decades to become what it was. I feel it's unrealistic that we'd expect it to be recovered in less than 4 years. As for Obama's handling of the economy, I personally am pleased with the way it's been handled. That does not mean I'm satisfied, I expect more to be done. But I didn't have any unrealistic expectations. It doesn't matter who occupied the Oval Office, this mess will not be completely recovered for a long, long time. I also think it's unrealistic to think that if Obama is defeated in the next election, that there will be any drastic improvement in the next 4 years.

PP92 blamed Bush. I agree with alot you say here, but completely disagree with the bolded. By your line of thought you think it's unrealistic to believe in 8 years this couldn't have been fixed. I personally believe we could be well on our way to "fixed" in 4 years.

Hey, I'm honest. I don't understand a lot of things that go in politics the way a lot of you do(like whose policies worked,where our taxes go, how the tax cuts affect me, how well the stimulus worked, etc etc) but I try to keep up and develop my own thoughts and opinions based on what makes sense to me. That's all I can do. I do know that if I knew absolutely nothing about politics and came to BGP for info on politics then I would think Obama is a bumbling idiot who is the reason America's economy is in the toilet and hasn't done anything right except kill Bin Laden and I know that isn't correct either. I know too many smart people who know a lot more about politics than I do and they say a lot of the same things about Obama that Trinityalum said. I have no reason to believe Obama is as awful as he is made out to be.

I never have nor will I ever say the President is the reason for the current mess. I will say he is the reason we are still in the current mess.

It seems to me that being more concerned about one's own personal situation is more a Republican philosophy. Looking out for one's self first and foremost, whereas most liberal ideals are looking out for the less fortunate or the poor.

I'm using myself as an example. I don't understand why that's D or R. It's just an example of how I see improvement. And, for the record, the family I use in my example is well, well below the poverty line. WELL below.

PP92 blamed Bush. I agree with alot you say here, but completely disagree with the bolded. By your line of thought you think it's unrealistic to believe in 8 years this couldn't have been fixed. I personally believe we could be well on our way to "fixed" in 4 years.

I'd love to discuss how in more detail. But should we do another thread?

Unemployment is improving.

 

Not versus when Obama took office, it's about 25% worse and that is what he will be judged against. Whether it's consistently improving is also unclear as the numbers seem to bounce around. I think (hope) it will be better come election time but whether it's enough to get him re-elected nobody knows.

Unemployment is higher now than when he took office, is it not?

 

Just like it was higher when GWB left than when he took office. I think rockmom's point is that it actually has gone down a small amount in the last year. I mean unemployment blew up by the third year of Reagan (about 3 or 4 % higher than when Carter left office) but by the fourth year he had done a good job of telling us the right things were in place to sweep Fritz and Geraldine out to sea.

I never have nor will I ever say the President is the reason for the current mess. I will say he is the reason we are still in the current mess.

 

That is exactly what he will have to overcome.

Know it all, if you really know it all you know that while the unemployment rate was lower when President Obama took office we were losing 750,000 jobs per month and the economy was shrinking at a rate that hadn't been seen since the Great Depression. President Obama's economic policies arrested the fall and have lead to slow growth. A vast improvement. If you know it all, you know that the Health Care bill isn't socialist. The VA and public health service are socialist. Medicare is left of center. The health care bill is quite centrist in that it is based on PRIVATE insurance.

 

Since when does bailing out and stimulus packages cease to work? Greece lived way above its means-like we are doing- and they are finished. Japan spent God knows how much money bailing their country out and dug themselves a hole and China has now taken over as the worlds 2nd largest economy. Yes. I can see Obama's capital injections working while China's economy grows 10 more percent while we decline..His policies simply do not work. I don't know what makes you think keynesian economic policies actually work? The economy was doing good before the crash of the housing market. Unemployment was roughly 4.5%. When Obama took office it was around 7.6% now its over 9% with no sign or going down. And his healthcare bill costs way to much money. And what makes you think the federal Government can force citizens to purchase a product? I don't give a crap about it being socialist. I care about him not knowing what in the world he is doing and how he is going to pay for it and what goes through his head and where he thinks he can force me to buy a product. That is unconstitutional.

Just like it was higher when GWB left than when he took office. I think rockmom's point is that it actually has gone down a small amount in the last year. I mean unemployment blew up by the third year of Reagan (about 3 or 4 % higher than when Carter left office) but by the fourth year he had done a good job of telling us the right things were in place to sweep Fritz and Geraldine out to sea.

 

Two different people and two different policies.

 

On one end you had a competent President who knew what he was doing, on the other you have a man who is learning as he goes and enjoying his celebrity status as he goes on the Jay Leno show (don't miss him on there tonight people). We could see unemployment dropping towards the end of Reagan's fourth year. We won't see it under Obama because spending money you don't have doesn't work and never has.

Blame Lincoln....Bush is getting a raw deal....lol.

Two different people and two different policies.

 

On one end you had a competent President who knew what he was doing, on the other you have a man who is learning as he goes and enjoying his celebrity status as he goes on the Jay Leno show (don't miss him on there tonight people). We could see unemployment dropping towards the end of Reagan's fourth year. We won't see it under Obama because spending money you don't have doesn't work and never has.

 

I'm not even going to try to convince you, me or anyone else that Obama is some kind of Reagan. (He's not)

 

However, do you understand what you are saying in the above is as contradictory as it comes?

 

"a competent President" That was not how people felt in '83 and he wasn't proven as anything at that point. Unemployment had ballooned, the economy had not turned, the barracks were blown up in Beirut, and Sadat was assassinated a few years before. Reagan had been an actor and a Governor of California. He was far from a proven entity yet. All Reagan had was his charm and acting ability to hold us in place till he felt things could turn around. Sounds familiar to the accusations of Obama in the above.

 

We won't see it under Obama because spending money you don't have doesn't work and never has.

Have you ever looked at Reagan era spending? To quote one of Reagan's first term advisors: "We were all like pigs at the trough, everyone rooting for himself." Reagan gave Congress it's social programs in order to outspend the Russians in the military. It was deficit spending and there was no cutting the budget to pay for anything.

 

I don't think things will turn around. I didn't vote for Obama before and very likely won't this time either. But let's not pretend that some the accusations can't be used for icons of the other side of the aisle.

Come on Hatz, Reagan had been Governor of California for 8 years and had been in the political game for years before and after that. You can't say he wasn't proven and you certainly can't make a comparison to Obama's background.

I'm not even going to try to convince you, me or anyone else that Obama is some kind of Reagan. (He's not)

 

However, do you understand what you are saying in the above is as contradictory as it comes?

 

"a competent President" That was not how people felt in '83 and he wasn't proven as anything at that point. Unemployment had ballooned, the economy had not turned, the barracks were blown up in Beirut, and Sadat was assassinated a few years before. Reagan had been an actor and a Governor of California. He was far from a proven entity yet. All Reagan had was his charm and acting ability to hold us in place till he felt things could turn around. Sounds familiar to the accusations of Obama in the above.

 

But Reagan's policies worked. We are looking at it from a completely different perspective now. We made mistakes in the past and we now know how to make an economy work. If a person fails to realize the positive impacts it had and goes a completely different route and ignores successful policies (like Obama is doing) and we know it won't work, I would consider him incompetent. It doesn't matter what he was perceived as in '83. People didn't know a lot of what Thatcher or Reagan was doing but their policies worked. Reagan brought something new to the table and to the world. Obama has not. He is doing what we have seen in Japan and Europe. How are they doing? That is my point.

 

 

 

We won't see it under Obama because spending money you don't have doesn't work and never has.

Have you ever looked at Reagan era spending? To quote one of Reagan's first term advisors: "We were all like pigs at the trough, everyone rooting for himself." Reagan gave Congress it's social programs in order to outspend the Russians in the military. It was deficit spending and there was no cutting the budget to pay for anything.

He cut taxes which raised revenue. If it raised revenue, it did pay for some of the spending. Without those tax cuts, it is safe to say our deficit spending would of been higher.

Come on Hatz, Reagan had been Governor of California for 8 years and had been in the political game for years before and after that. You can't say he wasn't proven and you certainly can't make a comparison to Obama's background.

 

It really wasn't my intent but you have to admit, he was considered by many a loose cannon going into the Presidency. It wasn't until later that history vindicated him on many things.

 

And I'd also add that Reagan had enough years to invent himself in many ways before the presidency. He was nearly twice as old as Obama when he was elected. j/k

But Reagan's policies worked. We are looking at it from a completely different perspective now. We made mistakes in the past and we now know how to make an economy work. If a person fails to realize the positive impacts it had and goes a completely different route and ignores successful policies (like Obama is doing) and we know it won't work, I would consider him incompetent. It doesn't matter what he was perceived as in '83. People didn't know a lot of what Thatcher or Reagan was doing but their policies worked. Reagan brought something new to the table and to the world. Obama has not. He is doing what we have seen in Japan and Europe. How are they doing? That is my point.

 

 

 

 

He cut taxes which raised revenue. If it raised revenue, it did pay for some of the spending. Without those tax cuts, it is safe to say our deficit spending would of been higher.

 

My point as well. We have the distance of 30 years to tell us what we couldn't readily say then.

 

As to the 2nd response: He also raised taxes. Go back and reread the history some more. He lowered some and raised it on others. (Particularly in '86 if memory serves)