Yes, I know we probably would've a Republican government. But in that type of system all the power in the hand of the ruling party, so they cant blame the opposition for their screw ups.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Your thoughts on Obama?
- Thread starter Sam Fisher
- Start date
Yes, I know we probably would've a Republican government. But in that type of system all the power in the hand of the ruling party, so they cant blame the opposition for their screw ups.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Oh no, trust me, they do. Even in a majority government, everything that goes wrong is ALWAYS the opposition's fault.
Yes, the ruling party will say that, but its far from the truth.
tialing
Official Checked Star Member
I never said it would be. I Said Obama's not a good president. Do I think John McCain would've been a better president than Obama other than the risk of him falling over dead from old age and haveing Sarah Palin take over ? Yes, did he have his short comings ... sure, but a better alternative with more experience ... but that fear of age alone and the Poss of Palin taking over probably caused more people to vote for Obama than anything. However, The current vice President is certainly proven to be not much of a better alternative .... You have to admit Biden's pretty awful, as well as scary everytime he opens his mouth.
Do I think we have wonderful alternative at this point ... def not ... but another 4 years of this, come on ? To be honestly though .... we probably will find out what another four years of Obama will bring, because he probably will win, so he'll have to oppurtunity to do his thing. If he doesn't, I'm sure his supporters will still say two terms wasn't enough time either.
Sam Fisher
Banned
I don't see how John McCain, would be a better president than Obama. McCain would've spent just as much money as Obama getting us out of the recession. Some people just don't know the economy and government works. And Joe Biden has more experience than John McCain. He may be a loudmouth, but he would be a much better President than Sarah Palin.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
What you're missing is that the purpose of the stimulus was not JUST job creation. The primary goal was to "reflate" the economy. But even then, it wouldn't be correct to simply say that "each .1 increase in GDP cost $X billion." Fiscal policy assessments, whether you agree with a particular policy or not, simply do not work that way. It would be like saying, "rather than spend a trillion dollars in Iraq, why didn't we just give every Iraqi a check for $500K?" That would make no sense either, since it would have nothing to do with why we *claimed* to be there.
I agree that there was a good deal of waste and fluff in the broad stimulus package. And I didn't agree with many of the measures within it. But as I hear people, who claim to be "fiscal conservatives", argue against the very concept of the stimulus, they seem to forget (or conveniently ignore) that roughly 1/3 of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts (refunds, rebates, credits, accelerated depreciation, etc.). What they also seem to not realize is that the previous recession was more demand side based. It was one where the danger was deflation. The recessions of the early 80's were more supply side based. There was stagnant growth. But the over-riding danger was inflation. But recessions are not "pure plays" any more than most other things are. But one would typically address the larger contributing factor: if your big toe aches, but your arm is bleeding profusely... I'd suggest getting that arm taken care of first... but that's just me. So while a reliance on supply side theory seemed appropriate (and rather effective) in the 80's, having the majority of a fiscal stimulus package applied to things other than tax policy seemed more appropriate in the recession of 2007-09. If you have issues on the supply side of the equation, then you deal with the supply side. But if you have issues on the demand side of the equation, it would be rather foolish to devote most of your fiscal stimulus to the supply side... yet, that's what some seem to believe should have happened - or they believe that doing nothing was what the Econ gods on Mount Olympus wanted, and the recession would have (somehow, some way) just cured itself in 3-6 months. I call that the Jehovah's Witnesses approach to macroeconomics: "just do nothing, let it be and if we don't die, we'll be stronger."
Anyway, in a recession/near depression (especially demand based with creeping disinflation/approaching deflation), some amount of government spending is necessary. Why? Well, if you know how GDP is actually calculated, then that is apparent. GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). The trick is to not depend on increased G for too long. People act like it's voodoo or something. While the practical implementation is based on various theories, it's math... not magic. So people need to stop pretending that if C (the largest contributor) is decreasing, I is decreasing/frozen and X-M remains static, that somehow a decrease in G will still provide for a larger Y (GDP). Whether someone wants to be a liberal, a conservative or a member of the John Birch Society, the laws of mathematics do not bend - they're the same for everybody.
But people are free to believe whatever they choose, whether it's factually accurate or not. I just had a discussion with someone on another board who is a Reagan worshiper. He claimed that "Reagan whipped inflation using supply side economics." Funny, I don't remember it that way at all (probably because it didn't happen). I was in school then and the university I attended taught the conservative branch of fiscal economic theory (supply side economics). But inflation is addressed by using monetary policy. Fiscal policy might affect inflation longer term, but it is addressed by use of the various monetary policy tools. And that function is handled by the Fed - not the President or Congress. That was true in the 1930's and it's still true today. The President, no matter who it is, has nothing to do with monetary policy (other than nominating the Fed Chairman to be voted on by Congress). But people still make things up to suit whatever thoughts they feel most at home with. So whatever makes people happy and helps them sleep soundly at night... I guess it's all good. :dunno:
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Gay.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Totally Gay. :yesyes:
tialing
Official Checked Star Member
i disagree .... but everyone has their own opinion. No way to know for sure ... since he'll obviously never be president.
Saw this one posted elsewhere on a board.
Libs argued it was nothing more than distortion and inherited mess. Cons argued that Obama made a natural economy downturn worse.
I read and thought they were both wrong.
From some of the replies, I don't think people actually read this post.
From some of the replies, I don't think people actually read this post.
People read that reply, it's just a lie. That is the best use of half-truths ever. Those "facts" don't tell the story of the shit storm that Obama inherited.
Now, he has not done a good job of fixing it, but he inherited complete shite.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Gay.
The only major difference of a McCain Presidency would be that he would not have passed National Health Care Law. And we the stimulus would be made up of mostly corporate and personal tax cuts, but Like I said, he would've spent just as much money as Obama. Our military would still be Afghanistan and might still be in Iraq. And we lost our AAA crediting rating, because their wasn't a deal on fixing entitlement progams, and more major spending cuts. I doubt MCCain could've made deal on fixing entitlements.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Yeah, that was such a great idea that George W. Bush had eight years to implement it and didn't.
