• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's message to voters: Things could be worse

check this out......

Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows

more 1982 and 83 high unemployment rates than the current admin has. so, it seems things COULD be worse, like they were under reagan.
The numbers were on the way down under former President Reagan, the numbers are trending UP now as a percentage. Just saying, "well Reagan had more....." doesn't cut it. Since everyone wants to blame Bush for the unemployment numbers that started under a congressional/white house Democrat majority why don't you guys be honest and mention what the WH/Congress majority was before Reagan when those unemployment numbers got there..........
 
But keep in mind the distinct possibility that things for many more people could be worse.

We don't truly know what it's like to live in a depression. And we sure as heck won't care about a little defecit if we're all outta work and there are 1000's of homeless everywhere and people living in shacks.
The way to improve things is to lighten burdens; financial and regulatory.

You want to limit something, tax it and regulate it to death and then add an air of uncertainty that government will intrude negatively in the future, but how you don't know. That's been Obi's and his pals modus operandi the past 18-months.

He is an idealogue whose mistakes we might have been able to tolerate when times where good, but are only adding fuel to the fire during tough times.

Reagan and JFK knew what was needed during such times, and how growth, prosperity and government coffers are filled at all times.

Speeches of John F. Kennedy - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

JFK sounds like Reagan, and he explains all the errors being made by Obi and his crew.

"Things could be worse"... only gullibles and class warfare specialists believe that claptrap, and he has fewer motivated Gullibles than in 2008, plus many now understand what Hope & Change mean... it means, tax, spend, punish the wealth creators and regulate.

.
 
Last edited:
But keep in mind the distinct possibility that things for many more people could be worse.

We don't truly know what it's like to live in a depression. And we sure as heck won't care about a little defecit if we're all outta work and there are 1000's of homeless everywhere and people living in shacks.

But since we really don't know what a Rep. Pres. and/or Rep. run Congress would have done if they would have had the reins these last 18 months instead of the Dems, then we really just have to look at what Obama and Congress has done that, not what might have happened. Chances are really good that Repubs. would have tried something to try to prevent a worse recession. We just don't know if their policies would have been better or worse than what the Dems did.

I don't think the best judge of what Dems have/haven't done is the economy. If that was the only problem we had and the only policies the Dems affected, then many people who are disappointed might actually believe the "it could be worse" line. But a lot of people disagree with the other things they have done/are doing as well. From polls that I've seen, the Health Care bill is extremely unpopular. Everyone knows the HCB belonged completely to the Dems. I think more people would have been behind an actual Universal HealthCare bill, with government run healthcare, rather than what is seen as helping health insurance companies and a violation of freedom. Most people side with Arizona on their immigration crackdown, so by the Feds suing AZ over their new law, they seem to be trying to hinder efforts to actually stop illegal immigration. Even some of the financial bills look to be more helpful to big corporations and businesses that got themselves into their financial problems, rather than actually improving the lives of the less-financially-well-off Americans. It's easy to say that "it could have been worse" and more people could be without jobs if not for those bills and bailouts, but since the people who might have lost their jobs are still working, the public only sees the handouts. Plus, it wasn't just Republican policies that caused the recession and unemployment. Many people know this. It was a combination of policies from both parties. Yet, Dems are blaming the Repubs, and specifically Bush, for the entire failing economy. Some people are tired of the blame-game, from either side. I don't care who caused the problems. The people in office should be looking at all the things that caused them, making sure those policies are repealed/fixed, and working together to improve the situation.

Most people do not fall completely in step with one party or another. There are some things the Dems could have done, and even could be doing, that would help their chances of keeping the majority in Congress, including improving education and educational opportunities, actually doing something to stop illegal immigration, doing something about DOMA (they are the Democratic Party afterall), and actually working with Republicans in office now, instead of over them. Listening to what their constituents actually do and don't want would be major as well. I'm sure there are many other things that would help that I just can't think of right now.
 
If Obama hadn't of ordered the stimulus, and not spent any money at all on the problem. And unemployment was at 25% at their lowest estimates. I doubt conservatives would be sitting here saying "Bravo Mr. Obama for not doing any thing". No you'd be bitching about how h e didn't spend money.
False. Had Obama let the free market sort itself out, in spite of his other faults, he would have acquired a small measure of respect from fiscal conservatives.
 
False. Had Obama let the free market sort itself out, in spite of his other faults, he would have acquired a small measure of respect from fiscal conservatives.

I don't believe it for a second.

He would have received an endless torrent of, "I don't believe the government should be penning checks out of the taxpayer's dollars, but sometimes ..."
 
Last edited:
Obama's message to voters: Things could be worse

That's all that dumbass has to say?!?
 
Obama's change is coming just bend over and wait :lol:
 
While this may seem an apologist stance.

One must admit, in the realm of possibility, is the notion that things could well indeed be worse, and I'd say that throughout history leaders very rarely get credit for avoiding crises considering we'll never know just how bad things could have gotten.

If Obama hadn't of ordered the stimulus, and not spent any money at all on the problem. And unemployment was at 25% at their lowest estimates. I doubt conservatives would be sitting here saying "Bravo Mr. Obama for not doing any thing". No you'd be bitching about how h e didn't spend money. These are desperate times, I've heard rumblings that a secondary stimulus may be needed to avoid a secondary reseccion which this time, could be more severe. And no magically elected republicans, presidential or congressional are gonna be able to fix it with "tax cuts".

I think people really underestimate just how severe and fragile our situation is. It will take a long time to see what Obamas impact is. Do not be so hasty to judge. The country didn't collapse as some of you predicted it would the day he got elected. And all these months later, she's still afloat... Is she not?

Hate to remind you of this but...... Barry promised that with the stimulas (that didn't work), unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.

Please try to keep your facts straight.
 
Hate to remind you of this but...... Barry promised that with the stimulas (that didn't work), unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.

Please try to keep your facts straight.

I don't think he promised. He asserted.
 
Hate to remind you of this but...... Barry promised that with the stimulas (that didn't work), unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.

Please try to keep your facts straight.

I never admitted he wasn't off on his numbers, but the situation is so unpredictable right now. The market is being so erratic right now its pretty hard to estimate anything.

Look, MAYBE without the stimulus things COULD have been better. But nothing in the stimulus stopped private enterprise from hiring, they didn't.

The other problem is, which I think we can agree on. We're trying to artificially float our markets rather then taking the pain. There has to be ups and downs, just as the seasons change. But we don't wanna take the pain. If you really wanted to get your budget under control you have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Either you sacrifice economic growth for deficit reduction or you keep spending to try and keep this from going to ****. But eventually you can't outspend the inevitable. But I guarantee you won't applaud any leader that lets it happens, (R) or (D).
 
I never admitted he wasn't off on his numbers, but the situation is so unpredictable right now. The market is being so erratic right now its pretty hard to estimate anything.
Part of this is the uncertainty of what the regulations are going to do to normal operations and what unknown costs are coming from this. It's hard to put faith in markets and other investments when the odds can't be accurately known.

Look, MAYBE without the stimulus things COULD have been better. But nothing in the stimulus stopped private enterprise from hiring, they didn't.
This is partially related to the x factor in cost increases. Only partially, I don't have a good explanation for the rest.

The other problem is, which I think we can agree on. We're trying to artificially float our markets rather then taking the pain. There has to be ups and downs, just as the seasons change. But we don't wanna take the pain.
100% true, and something I said during the Bush admn. as well as the Obama one with the TARP programs. I have always thought them to be bad ideas.
If you really wanted to get your budget under control you have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Either you sacrifice economic growth for deficit reduction or you keep spending to try and keep this from going to ****. But eventually you can't outspend the inevitable. But I guarantee you won't applaud any leader that lets it happens, (R) or (D).
I am not a fan of raising taxes simply because they seem to lead to ever increasing abuse, I do agree that spending must be controlled and that temporary(and I want that specifically in writing from our reps) tax increases could be a short term solution, those taxes would have to be focused on debt reduction and solvency and have a sunset provision though.
 
While this may seem an apologist stance.

One must admit, in the realm of possibility, is the notion that things could well indeed be worse, and I'd say that throughout history leaders very rarely get credit for avoiding crises considering we'll never know just how bad things could have gotten.

If Obama hadn't of ordered the stimulus, and not spent any money at all on the problem. And unemployment was at 25% at their lowest estimates. I doubt conservatives would be sitting here saying "Bravo Mr. Obama for not doing any thing". No you'd be bitching about how h e didn't spend money. These are desperate times, I've heard rumblings that a secondary stimulus may be needed to avoid a secondary reseccion which this time, could be more severe. And no magically elected republicans, presidential or congressional are gonna be able to fix it with "tax cuts".

I think people really underestimate just how severe and fragile our situation is. It will take a long time to see what Obamas impact is. Do not be so hasty to judge. The country didn't collapse as some of you predicted it would the day he got elected. And all these months later, she's still afloat... Is she not?

Imagine if Kerry had won, and then Obama. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We'd probably be at a $100 trillion debt.
 
Last edited:
While this may seem an apologist stance.

One must admit, in the realm of possibility, is the notion that things could well indeed be worse, and I'd say that throughout history leaders very rarely get credit for avoiding crises considering we'll never know just how bad things could have gotten.

If Obama hadn't of ordered the stimulus, and not spent any money at all on the problem. And unemployment was at 25% at their lowest estimates. I doubt conservatives would be sitting here saying "Bravo Mr. Obama for not doing any thing". No you'd be bitching about how h e didn't spend money. These are desperate times, I've heard rumblings that a secondary stimulus may be needed to avoid a secondary reseccion which this time, could be more severe. And no magically elected republicans, presidential or congressional are gonna be able to fix it with "tax cuts".

I think people really underestimate just how severe and fragile our situation is. It will take a long time to see what Obamas impact is. Do not be so hasty to judge. The country didn't collapse as some of you predicted it would the day he got elected. And all these months later, she's still afloat... Is she not?

I have to admit, I hold our government to a higher standard than keeping the country afloat. The American people were promised unemployment wouldn't reach 10% if the Stimulus Bill passed. It is actually close to 20%. One of the problems I have with Obama is that he hasn't offered any real solutions to getting the economy back on track. How many trillions of dollars must we spend before we realize this is not working and never has?

Also, Obama could have done a much better job in foreign policy. Guantanomo, Patriot Act, Iraq and Iran... Seems like Bush never left.
 
Part of this is the uncertainty of what the regulations are going to do to normal operations and what unknown costs are coming from this. It's hard to put faith in markets and other investments when the odds can't be accurately known.

Very true, but that seems to be more of a failure of your political system, allowing for so much abuse by congress from both sides. 10 Million page laws? WTF Is that ROFL

100% true, and something I said during the Bush admn. as well as the Obama one with the TARP programs. I have always thought them to be bad ideas.

I think one thing we'll never ever know, is what might have happened if those banks had collapsed completely. TARP may have been unpopular. But fortunately or unfortunately we'll never know just how bad things could have gotten if it hadn't of been implemented. It could have led to a global economic paralysis of unimaginative proportions of which the world has never seen. or not... that's the beauty of the what ifs ;)


I am not a fan of raising taxes simply because they seem to lead to ever increasing abuse, I do agree that spending must be controlled and that temporary(and I want that specifically in writing from our reps) tax increases could be a short term solution, those taxes would have to be focused on debt reduction and solvency and have a sunset provision though.

The issue is true accountability on the part of your politicians. You gotta get rid of this two party system, they both abuse the system, they're both corrupt, only difference is in certain regards such as campaign donations and lobbyists, you simply institutionalized corruption :mrgreen:
 
I don't think he promised. He asserted.

It actually wasn't Obama. In a paper written by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein - the paper claimed the following:

First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost
nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus,
the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential
total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the
unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the
approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.1

SOURCE

Obama made many claims that such stimulus was required, that we cannot affort to NOT spend, and how many times did we hear him say we cannot go backwards - which is what got us into this "mess" in the first place. We now know however, that that bucking common sense and convention as they did --- came up vastly short. Obama bought into the notion that the stimulus would keep down unemployment as the paper stated --- Obama, Romer and Bernstein were wrong. The nitpick facts are Obama never promised anything nor asserted anything. He implied by his campaign, speeches and policy - that the paper was true and would happen... he was wrong.
 
Imagine if Kerry had won, and then Obama. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We'd probably be at a $100 trillion debt.

... most of our existing debt has been accrued under Republican administrations and policies, a reality I doubt conservatives will ever successfully remedy or address.
 
The numbers were on the way down under former President Reagan, the numbers are trending UP now as a percentage. Just saying, "well Reagan had more....." doesn't cut it. Since everyone wants to blame Bush for the unemployment numbers that started under a congressional/white house Democrat majority why don't you guys be honest and mention what the WH/Congress majority was before Reagan when those unemployment numbers got there..........

Reagan's unemployment numbers didn't skyrocket until he was in office for about 2 years. Plenty of time for those numbers to have reflected his policies.
 
Very true, but that seems to be more of a failure of your political system, allowing for so much abuse by congress from both sides. 10 Million page laws? WTF Is that ROFL
Oh, I know it.



I think one thing we'll never ever know, is what might have happened if those banks had collapsed completely. TARP may have been unpopular. But fortunately or unfortunately we'll never know just how bad things could have gotten if it hadn't of been implemented. It could have led to a global economic paralysis of unimaginative proportions of which the world has never seen. or not... that's the beauty of the what ifs ;)
I think that instead of failure what would have happened would have been a situation of deconsolidation. The assets from the failing companies in the umbrella could have been absorbed by more stable companies, and the stronger subsidiaries would not have money lost by the failing counterparts. In essence the weak companies would cease to be a problem while the entities would come out leaner and stronger. Backing failure was a bad idea. It all came down to lack of discipline though and you are correct in that.



The issue is true accountability on the part of your politicians. You gotta get rid of this two party system, they both abuse the system, they're both corrupt, only difference is in certain regards such as campaign donations and lobbyists, you simply institutionalized corruption :mrgreen:
I think that is coming, but a third party probably won't be viable for probably another 10-20 years unfortunately. But in essence we the people definitely need to demand accountability from our employees.....er, politicians if you will.
 
... most of our existing debt has been accrued under Republican administrations and policies, a reality I doubt conservatives will ever successfully remedy or address.

The Republicans spent a trillion bucks on turtle tunnels and deer under passes?
 
I really don't see how crippling an economy is preventing things from getting worse. I was watching the market daily during the bailouts and every single time one of those windbags spoke of messing with the economy the bottom fell out from the market. As well, everyone knew these damn TARP programs were going to come with strings such as new and untenable regs., deficits, taxes, waste, and abuse......the market reacted in kind. Need more proof, Saturn and Pontiac no longer exist after the auto bailout, but the unions still have all of their perks. Chrysler is still kind of ****ed........GM's CEO was basically fired by the dumbkopf in the white house....... it's pretty much provable that things could have actually gotten better rather than worse if those egotistical dumb ****s in congress and the white house had stopped trying to micromanage everything.

Just ask those that grew up during the last one, some are still alive. In fact, there is theory stating that if the government had done nothing then that a depression could have been avoided in those days as well.

Actually, I've been saying for well over a year now that by doing nothing, we would have been in much better shape. Why you ask? Well, put simply, what I'm about to tell you is something you won't hear on the MSM, or from a politician, because either they don't realize it, or they're too damn stupid. By NOT allowing the banks, AIG, Lehman, GM, etc to fail, and by instituting the bailouts, and then the stimulus, what government actually did economically was spread that failed risk-venture to the common people. Ya see, all that would have suffered from those failures were those that had a direct hand it their investment. Others, you know, me and you, took no risk, hence we would have been spared. In fact, my kids, and their kids, and their kids would have been spared to burden of paying it all back.

The pieces would have been swallowed up by the market, yes that's right, the free market, and if not swallowed, new emerging markets would have been created. The net loss would have been minimal over time, but appear large at first. This is was the smoke and mirrors people talk about when they said it needed to be done NOW. It didn't, and every economist that said it did, I DARE them to call me a liar.

The truth folks is that, the American tax payer, voter, citizen was duped, either knowingly, or unknowingly, but either way, the powers that be made the wrong call.

In sum, the failure of the banks, GM, Lehman, AIG, fannie and freddie, etc... was a direct result of mismanagement, collusion, deceit, and criminal activity. The holders of that risk would have paid a huge price, and yes that means Ma, and Pa, who aren't sophisticated enough to know better, but I say so what. It's not my problem, and in a free market, where risk disclosure is made mandatory, I say, tough, next time buyer beware. We The People are now paying for their troubles, when we shouldn't be.

That's just how smart those lawyers we all elected think they really are!

How do you feel now? Kinda dirty, like you were conned eh? Good, do something about it come November!


Tim-
 
Oh, I know it.



I think that instead of failure what would have happened would have been a situation of deconsolidation. The assets from the failing companies in the umbrella could have been absorbed by more stable companies, and the stronger subsidiaries would not have money lost by the failing counterparts. In essence the weak companies would cease to be a problem while the entities would come out leaner and stronger. Backing failure was a bad idea. It all came down to lack of discipline though and you are correct in that.



I think that is coming, but a third party probably won't be viable for probably another 10-20 years unfortunately. But in essence we the people definitely need to demand accountability from our employees.....er, politicians if you will.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. You seem to get it, LMR, thanks!


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom