American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]So I wonder what is the underlying factor that create such extreme obsession, both adulation and hatred of Obama.[/QUOTE]It's the same factor that caused such an extreme adulation and hatred of Bush. When was the last time there was a debate that contained any real facts or positions on issues beyond marketing points? Campaign ads are smear campaigns. IMO, we've reduced our politics to raw emotions playing on extreme fears. In that environment, you get extreme reactions to candidates.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Here's another one: The Cash for Clunkers program was a. Clunker.

Even NPR, that bastion of liberalism, concedes it: [url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers[/url]

It accomplished two things:

1. It shifted car purchases forward, but did not impact total purchases, because once the program ended sales declined substantially. That's according to the study that the article linked above discusses. The net result: No greater car sales than would otherwise have occurred.

2. It boosted sales for Japanese car manufacturers. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American models. 6 of the top 10 cars purchased were Japanese or Korean models.[/QUOTE]Alas, NPR couldn't bring itself to report on the third and perhaps most significant impact of cash for clunkers: screwing the poor! The program sought out older cars, bought them from people who could have afforded newer ones on their own and destroyed them (all the cars turned into the programs that is) Ever wonder why there is a used auto parts market? Ever wonder who are most of the people purchasing used auto parts (as opposed to new auto parts for an older car) Ever wonder where used auto parts come from? This program raised the cost for every poor American just trying keep their old POS car on the road so that they can get by. What did they do to deserve this financial stick in the eye?

Wow, what a great magnanimous ruler we have. He screws the "rich" (e. G. The rightful owners of GM and Chrysler) and the poor (purchasers of used auto parts) and all the taxpayers just to bailout the unions. And to think, I thought he was a Marxist ideologue.

Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.

Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?

Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?

[QUOTE=Exon123]This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman. All » This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.

Video was done by roy beck:

On you tube.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ&feature=player_embedded[/url]

[url]http://www.answers.com/topic/roy-beck[/url]

Full video on google:

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc[/url].[/QUOTE]Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.

I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?

BTW the Google link doesn't work.

Doppelganger,

Actually just going over some past posts. I don't agree with any of the wars. The loss of American soldiers for these campaigns were un-necessary to say the least. And really isn't going to have any long term benefits. I was wondering if you even watched the video link of Cheney in 94 detailing why we didn't "Finish the job in Desert Storm" under the first Bush. The real kicker is what he says right at the end and I will quote.

"For the family's of the 146 lost in action, it wasn't a cheap war and the question for the President whether we went on to bagdad and take on more casualties and get Saddam. Was How many additional dead was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right." ~Cheney 1994

Why does the middle east hate us? Maybe because we support the Israelis? Who have different religious views in that part of the world compared to most of the middle east. Religions create wars. All religions have extremists. Even the ones in the good ol' USA. Our Politician's make policy based on their Religious views. Forgetting to separate Church and State.

Let me make a point with out getting into to much detail about Israelis. They aren't any better than The Palestine's or Hamas. They create so much of their own problems. Its no wonder the other guys want to kill them so badly. Religion is Poison and God is not great.

We could go on a long time about budget and spending issues. The bottom line is that most of the increased spending in the last two years has been to address the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession that Obama inherited. Obama is simply taking responsible steps advised by economists. It wouldn't be much different if Repubs were in power either. The line that Obama is an out-of-control spender is unfortunate politics. The right would like people to think Dems spend like this all the time, overlooking the context of the spending & events of the past two years.

Both TARP and Stimulus were responsible and effective actions, regardless of how you argue who approved it and spent the money. But we should be accurate about what was what. Fox News fan Doppelganger tried to spread mis-information by claiming Stimulus spending exceeded $1 Trillion. The real number as of today is $289 Billion, of an approved $499 Billion. The effect of that spending combined with tax benefits in the Stimulus has been significant:

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm[/url]

Repubs claim the Stimulus was a failure, but this is just more unfortunate politics. The only grain of truth here is that it did not keep unemployment below 8% as projected back in January 2009. That projection was a mistake. But you needed a crystal ball then to see the huge layoffs to come in 2009. If anything, a more accurate projection would have warranted a larger stimulus. And without the Stimulus things would have been much worse; that's not just a talking point but a conclusion of respected economists. Contrast this with right wing talking points that Obama spent $1 Trillion on the Stimulus and it accomplished little.

Maybe you guys can try your spin on some other board, it ain't workin here.

I've also noted before, that despite the official party line many Republicans were praising Stimulus-funded projects in their districts. Schwarzenegger summed it up nicely:

[i]“I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on stimulus money and saying this doesn’t create any new jobs, and then they go out and do photo-ops and they’re posing with the big check and they say, ‘Isn’t this great! Look the kind of money I provide here for the state! And this is great money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, and this has created 20,000 new jobs,’” Schwarzenegger said on ABC’s "This Week." “It doesn’t match up.”[/i]

Schwarzenegger: GOP stimulus attacks, then praise of projects hypocritical
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/82517-schwarzenegger-calls-gop-opposition-of-stimulus-then-praise-of-projects-hypocritical[/url]

Right now, I am in the midst of watching on CNBC, a report on the financing of toxic loans & mortgages that led to the financial meltdown. Let me just say "greedy / unscrupulous financial institutions and greedy / naive homeowners", add Wall Street to the mix, and voila! Iceland was just one place where the cocktail ignited big time. Alot of people had to grow up and found they had been wrong about the Disney notion that "crime does not pay".

So how about Franks, Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, Obama. They are just mere players in the game. And so who are the enemies? Alas, don't look too far, just look in the mirror!

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.

I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?

BTW the Google link doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Its something I've never really considered until a friend just recently sent me the video. It makes sense, imagination population growth is taxing the resources of the USA.

The video states there 800,000 legal immigrants coming into the US every year. But Lord only knows how many illegal's are coming in each year, maybe another 1 to 2 million. In time of course this add's up and we end up competing for goods and services, including "Job's" our biggest problem in today's economy.

Moreover Federal, State and Local Governments must pay for the extra infrastructure need to support the added population, more Government, schools, police, fire depts, ect, ect. This of course cost money which none of these Governments have. Thus they have to raise tax's and cut the goods and services offered to support the population.

I was astounded to hear that California with the 8th largest economy in the world, not only broke and can't pay its bill's, with 12 percent unemployment. But to keep up with the population growth must build a new School everyday to keep up with the new enrollments.

Very possibility the problems in America are not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, but too many immigrants diluting our way of life competing for the goods and services our country has to offer.

Its really something worth thinking about.

Exon

Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are some simple solutions that, if the Ruling Class could do what is right rather than what is in its own selfish interests, could start to help the US in terms of its security, both financial and homeland.

1. Stop all illegal immigration immediately and review if the quotas for LEGAL immigration should be raised.

- an influx of 1-2 million illegal immigrants places an additional burden on the states and federal govt that can be quantified (i.e. you can calculate the cost)

- most illegal immigrants are indigent.

- indigent individuals (whether legal or not) tend to 'demand' more subsidized and 'free' services than those of means.

The actual cost of this to states and the federal govt (both of which are funded entirely through taxes) is the source of many debates. However, it is estimated that there are 11-20 million illegals in the US. When you calculate the costs included education, health care, displaced legal workers, law enforcement, etc. It turns out to be a pretty big number. Estimates run from the billions to the hundreds of billions (depending upon the political agenda of the group publishing the number) One group estimates that the public education costs alone for illegals is more than $7B per year (I am not endorsing this number, just putting it out as an example)

2. Paying out defined benefit pensions to employees of any state or federal employer should be illegal (from this point forward)

For those of you that missed my earlier explanation, simply put defined benefit plans pay you an annual amount based upon some metric (average salary over your last three years or whatever) This type of plan does not require that the employee contribute anything to the plan nor does it take into consideration the performance of the pension assets, over time. No one in the private sector gives defined benefit pensions, however it is the standard for govt employees. Why? (unions) Take a moment and download the annual budget for your town or city. Take a look at how much is allocated to retirement benefits for people no longer working for the municipality. This practice is one of the primary contributors to bankrupting or towns, cities, states and the federal govt.

Gentlemen,

I am appalled at your callous use of the words "Illegal Immigrants".

The politically correct phrase is "Undocumented Democrats".

Thank you,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.[/QUOTE]Easy. I explained this before on 8/8 in case you missed it. The chart below is also based on CBO data and has the same shape but shows the deficit components. The deficits are almost all due to the wars, tax cuts and economic downturn, which are all legacies from Bush. It's these same components Obama is working to address.

[QUOTE]Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?

Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?[/QUOTE]The Obama administration has not done a good job of managing expectations. That's a valid criticism. But we've had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth. Last week's jobs report was better than expected. The unemployment rate still ticked up because more people entered the workforce. You know all this. The approaches have been sound, but more effort is needed which Obama has acknowledged and that's what we'll be seeing. I agree we are moving in the right direction.

It turned out the Stimulus was too small for the recession it was designed to fight. Guess who fought the size of the Stimulus - Republicans. The same people who now attempt to claim it was a failure. The conduct of Republicans has been shameful.

Here's another relevant article to consider, noting that sustained job creation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries:

Strongest jobs recovery in decades. Seriously.
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm[/url]

[QUOTE]I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore[/QUOTE]You're the one who keeps repeating this line. But as the chart I posted shows, the economic issues we are dealing with now are mainly legacies from Bush policies. He himself had a limited role and there were many factors involved. But it happened under his watch and that's how people talk about it, fair or not.

Once again you are wrong as to whether people are "buying" this:

Poll: 71 Percent Of Americans Still Blame Bush For The Current Economic Woes
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/03/most-blame-bush-economy/[/url]

81% rate U.S. economy as 'poor' - CNN poll
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/05/news/economy/economy_poll_cnn/index.htm[/url]

The CNN poll found that more Americans hold Republicans responsible than Democrats for current economic problems, with 44% blaming the GOP and 35% picking the Democrats. When Bush's name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53%. I'm sure voters will be reminded about Bush in the upcoming elections.

Didn't you ever learn [I]"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."[/i] ?

Esten, let's take a look at the costs you keep bring up.

TARP & Stimulus.

According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.

Obama didn't even bother to vote "present" on TARP he just skipped it all together. Don't want to vote for on it just spend the money.

While we are talking about TARP – Obama spent a total of $77.6 Billion on the GM / Chrysler / GMAC / Chrysler Financial / GM Suppliers & Chrysler Suppliers bailout from TARP.

Also while we are on the TARP issue – Obama spent the bulk of the $69.8 Billion that went to AIG and all the bonuses were paid under his watch using TARP money as he stood by and watched it happen!

[url]http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/[/url]

But the true cost projected by CBO @ 10 years = $327 Trillion

[url]http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/[/url]

Oh, I almost forgot to add the $63 Billion Obama has authorized for the “Women-Centered Global Health Program” so unless these funds are for subsidizing guys on the Forum then it’s just more waste!

BUSH & IRAQ

You are always so hot to blame Bush and the spending on the war in Iraq for the economy, well how about these numbers on spending during the same time period the Iraq War was going on to put the cost in prospective:

1. Under Bush the Fed Gov spent more on education than on the war, the states and local governments spent more than 10 times the amount the Fed did on education

2. The war’s cost was less than 25% of the spending on JUST Medicare during the same period (this is only Medicare not Medicaid or Welfare which outstrip Medicare in spending)

[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html[/url]

POLLS

Bush vs Obama
You always love polls but you only select those that favor your side. Regarding your Bush vs Obama poll, the one I found at random indicated when people were asked if today they could choose between having Bush back or keep Obama the results were Obama = 48% and Bush = 46% (margin of error = 3.4%) so it was basically a dead heat. This is nowhere near what you tried to represent!

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/poll-public-split-on-whether-they-would-prefer-obama-or-george-w-bush.php[/url]

JOBS.

I did a little research on your claim of 3 Million jobs CREATED by Obama, but since the statement is false on its face when you consider we are at 9.6% unemployment I just didn't bother. Perhaps you mis-spoke and meant CREATED &/ or SAVED, since it would be impossible to have created 3 million jobs and still have the unemployment rate go UP to 9.6% , unless of course you were losing many more jobs than you were claiming to create.



I really did like your little dodge to explain the uptick in unemployment by trying to ignore it by saying well there were more people entering the job market. July and August are NOT the months you see up swings in job seekers.

You also conveniently forgot about those folks which are not counted DOL unemployment figures when their unemployment benefits run out or they cease looking for employment out of sheer frustration. When you include them in the number it is well over 10% , add in underemployed and you are well over 14. Don't believe me – go to the Department of Labor web site, its all there.

Nice try but no sale – the folks out there with no job are sure as hell not buying this crap.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? [/QUOTE][QUOTE]According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.[/QUOTE]First you claimed Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on Stimulus. When I challenged you on this you tried to throw in TARP. When I challenged you on THAT you now refer to CNNMoney's bailout tracker which has a $1.2 Trillion list of all federal stimulus programs spanning several years. This list includes other items such as the $168B committed and spent for the "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008" which Bush signed into law in Feb. 2008.

Holy crap man, are you THAT lost ??

The package Obama signed in his first months in office, commonly referred to as "Stimulus", is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was a $787B package comprising $499B in spending and $288B in tax relief. And there is a difference between [I]committed[/i] and [I]spent[/i]. To date per your CNN link only $295B has been spent ($289B on recovery.gov). That's far different from your statement that Obama spent over $1 Trillion on Stimulus.

You don't deserve any more of my time until you fess up on your Stimulus mis-information.

There are two major problems with the argument in the video.

1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.

2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.

Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military. The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through. IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.

Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.

Your constant defense of the indefensible is almost laughable. According you your own CNN site clearly shows $1.2 Trillion allocated to the Stimulus program (and that is only one of the several spending bills passed by the Democrats) No they have not spent all of it yet and if the Republican's sweep in November they will not have the chance to do so. If you add the TARP money Obama spent (surely you are not trying to claim Bush spent it after he left office and Obama was sworn in) with the rest of their wild ass spending on top of the ObamaCare debacle all of which has led directly to the unprecedented increase in the deficit.

The problem with the economy is the Government. The only thing you and your liberal ilk can say is the Stimulus was not big enough as the reason why it is failing. Why bankrupt the country in 4 years if you can do it in 1 right?

Obama is no different than Roosevelt; they both prolonged the economic down turn by interjecting government programs which only stall economic growth. Roosevelt's only prolonged the depression until WWII; Obama's may well push the economy into a double dip recession.

Just as you have suggested, Obama's answer to everything is more spending and more taxes. The newest round of stimulus (sorry not stimulus it is targeted government investment) will primarily benefit his cronies in the unions at the Federal and State levels while doing nothing for the vast majority of the unemployed. Hey I thought we did all this wonderful infrastructure work under Stimulus I, Obama spent enough money on signs to tell us they were?