A jobless recovery, which is just about what everyone is predicting, will mean a pretty extreme condition. The 'average' projection at this point is losing another 2 percent unemployment, and even the best ones think we'll be above 10% at the next election, only getting down to normal American figures by 2020. If we are at 12% unemployment then, it's going to be awful hard for Obama to explain that. Not saying that it will be largely his fault, but it will clearly be his economy, clearly he will have been wrong about the stimulus, and we will be in record debt - especially as his extremely expensive social programs are pushed forward. I don't think he'll make it, but obviously others here differ.
He can't keep blaming Bush. He owns the economy now. Things have gotten worse on his watch even after he said the stuff he was doing would hold the line or get better. He's got a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House. There is no excuse he can give to say it is Bush's fault or the Republicans fault.
^Come on, it's always The Last Bunch's Fault in politics. We've had a Labour government for over 12 years, and still they'll come out with a 'we inherited...' excuse. I can't see Black Blair admitting any faults, not unless they'll somehow benefit him.
A thought: the Grayson amendment to block the Watt amendment* to HR 1207 (Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill) just passed. If HR 1207 passes relatively unaltered, once it's shown how the Fed has been playing favorites, and basically printing money for the benefit of Goldman Sachs, it could cause political pressure for, for the first time in history, a conservative, even deflationary monetary policy, since the inflationary one hasn't worked its usual political miracles so far. If it's deflationary enough, and is passed soon enough, ironically, it could actually help Obama get reelected. *would have gutted the audit portions of the bill and made the Fed board of governors White House appointees.
House and Senate are too busy trying to shove health care up our asses like a proctologist's tool without lube. Pelosi and Reed are making and stand to make a pretty penny from all of this. I am of the opinion that their time and our tax dollars are better spent elsewhere. This has become an albatross that will do nothing but ensure a nothing outcome except paying off back room debts. In fairness, all administrations do this to one degree or another, O just got saddled with this one and if he hits Letterman another fifty times it won't do diddly squat to help him. His be everywhere TeeVee personality approach is hurting him any more. The stimulus is already being shown to be a farce on some levels and an outright boonoggle on others. A hell of a lot of what I will call cronies for a lack of better term have benefited greatly at the expense of other more deserving areas in need of improvement.
Unless things change dramatically in the next couple of years, I think his Presidency is a "one and done" event. I haven't seen any real change, except for the worse, and I haven't run into people still harboring hope (except in lottery ticket line).
Reading this board is like a gateway into some bizarre, alternate universe. Then I remember you're all bitter conservatives who are shocked that people have different opinions.
The thing that shocks me is people are saying Americans will vote republican in the next election because of the state of things like the economy whilst at the same time admitting that it would be pretty much the same had the repubs won last time. That makes no sense...
As much as I hate admitting this, Dan's got a point. If the next guy is a spend-happy RINO, we'll be no better off voting for that guy because he's "better than Obama" than we as a nation were for election a Democrat President because he was "better than Bush." I also don't remember seeing a lot of people who were genuinely thrilled with McCain any more than Democrats loved John Kerry in '04. When the party's more interested in winning an election instead of actually standing up for what it supposedly represents--like the open RINO in the '09 special election in New York City--there's a big problem. It'd be great if we could get some more third-party candidates into office (good ones, not the same type of idiot with (I) next to his/her name). I certainly think there's a place in American politics for a party that's conservative on spending and liberal on social issues, which I imagine a good chunk of voters fall into.
I was thinking about that earlier today. The healthcare bill is being gutted, re-arranged and modified to the point where it will be nothing more than another stone around our collective necks. What good intentions started the bill have long given way to the political process's ability to take even the best of ideas and turn them into financial and social liabilities. I like Obama, I want him to preside over a prosperous and growing America. I would say the same of any President, because when they don't, we all lose. I'm not willing to see someone else suffer just so "my guy" can stay ahead politically. Whatever is best for the nation needs to win out. Whether that will be Obama or not, we'll see. J.
Without ousting the whole of Congress, a third party president would be useless. But she's right in principle. The fundamental problem is the Democrats and Republicans, as both Clyde and Paladin have pointed out repeatedly, because the two parties, in practice, represent a single party system, weakly clinging to an illusion of diversity by talking out of both sides of it's mouth. The single party would better be called the "Legacy" party, or the "Incumbency" party. At the end of the day, and on paper, the two power entities in US government act in concert, winking at one another as they otherwise serve to divide the electorate.
Am I the only person who didn't fail civics class? The Congress controls the purse, not the President. Obama urged the stimulus and helped create it, but it only came to be because the House said so.
Dont know, but considering the performance of the two clown parties we have now, I'm willing to give another party a chance.
That's where electing Obama will actually pay off. This mess we're in? It didn't happen until the Democrats took control of the legislature on the strength of clims of Bush's unpopularity, repeated ad nauseum by the media. Now that the figurehead in chief has a (D) behind his name, maybe we can get Republicans back in control of the legislature.
You really want to argue that Obama's not responsible for the stimulus? You're veering well into barking moonbat territory.
It's not ALL a result of that, certain factors like the housing bubble have deeper roots....but there is a direct correlation between the 2006 Congressional elections and the movement in the wrong direction of a number of indicators. Not to defend the previous president - as soon as he put forth NCLB and Medicare part D it was clear he was part of the problem, but things have clearly been done worse since the begining of 2007.
No, but when people piss and moan about either party controlling the White House, someone's gotta smack some knowledge in their heads.
How was the economy from 1994-October of 2006, when the Republicans controlled the legislature? Even with a major act of terrorism that crippled our economy and a hurricane that wiped out a major city, we were doing pretty well. Then, within 2 years of the Dems taking over everything was in the shitter.
