Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 That is clearly the hope of the White House here, that this distraction takes away from the poor performance of Geithner and Summers thus far and that once the economy does recover, they can move onSay this about our President, he swings for the fences He does indeed. It's a home run or a huge let down. Speaking of Japan, I am about to post something worth reading (imho) - hang on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 of course this isn't Japan, and the recovery only has to start by 2011. But, we'll see, betting against the US is not usually a worthwhile venture. Betting against trillion dollar deficits is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 oh so it was the deficits that caused this mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 oh so it was the deficits that caused this mess No, but the upcoming massive deficits will do the trick - just watch Japan and we are not too far behind. Ditto for Great Britian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So for those of you who voted for Obama, are you now ready to admit that he has brought absolutely nothing to change the political atmosphere in DC? It sounds that way from this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The question oh so it was the deficits that caused this mess And the answer No, but the upcoming massive deficits will do the trick - just watch Japan and we are not too far behind. Ditto for Great Britian. President Obama will never have a budget that has a smaller deficit then Bush's worst deficit until his final year (seeing how the bailouts were a large part of it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So for those of you who voted for Obama, are you now ready to admit that he has brought absolutely nothing to change the political atmosphere in DC?It sounds that way from this thread. When exactly would you expect this to happen? What is a logical timeline to see something like this? Two days? Two weeks? Two months? Seems like some of you expected it within two minutes. Is anyone under the delusion that you can change something so ingrained in two months? Really? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So for those of you who voted for Obama, are you now ready to admit that he has brought absolutely nothing to change the political atmosphere in DC?It sounds that way from this thread. I'm willing to give him sometime to get things going...we didn't get in this mess over night and it won't be fixed overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 So for those of you who voted for Obama, are you now ready to admit that he has brought absolutely nothing to change the political atmosphere in DC?It sounds that way from this thread. To be honest, I did not expect it to be bipartisan on either side. We're at a point in our nation's history where we will be equally divided and nothing will change it. We are heading toward a situation that we see in Japan and that is now accelerating faster than some have predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 When exactly would you expect this to happen? What is a logical timeline to see something like this? Two days? Two weeks? Two months? Seems like some of you expected it within two minutes.Is anyone under the delusion that you can change something so ingrained in two months? Really? ~Bang I'm not saying he should have changed it by now. But at least give some appearance that you intend to follow up on your promises. Bipartisanship = fail no lobbyists = fail no pork = fail no dirty politics as usual = fail transparency = verdict's still out It's not that his actions haven't done enough to change it. It's that his actions have done so much to perpetuate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm not saying he should have changed it by now. But at least give some appearance that you intend to follow up on your promises.Bipartisanship = fail no lobbyists = fail no pork = fail no dirty politics as usual = fail transparency = verdict's still out It's not that his actions haven't done enough to change it. It's that his actions have done so much to perpetuate it. Again, from all practical standpoints, it's still too early to just announce failure. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 oh so it was the deficits that caused this mess Also, to be fair... The deficit and debt problems have been slowly mounting since 1965 and every Admin and every session of Congress is to blame. Nixon was the one who had some golden opportunities to nip some things, but he added to the problems and it's been that way ever since the early 1970s. The latest budget projections are staggering. We're going to run up more debt in the next four years than what we did from 1776 to 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Almost everyone has said that the budget he has proposed and the agenda he set was "transformational"... that's a pretty big word that means "change" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Again, from all practical standpoints, it's still too early to just announce failure.~Bang I don't really get this "too early" thing. I keep hearing how he has accomplished so much so quickly but that it's still too early to start passing judgment. Maybe failure is too strong a word. But I still think that so far his administration is perpetuating most of the things that your average American doesn't like about politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Almost everyone has said that the budget he has proposed and the agenda he set was "transformational"... that's a pretty big word that means "change" You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about changing the ethics of DC. Go to his website if you need a refresher. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 No, it's not too early. When the president signed the spending bill last month, he took ownership of the economy and it is on his watch now. Soon, he will sign the mortgage deal, another spending bill, more to banks and (possibly) auto makers. Then he becomes entrenched in this economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm not saying he should have changed it by now. But at least give some appearance that you intend to follow up on your promises.Bipartisanship = fail no lobbyists = fail no pork = fail no dirty politics as usual = fail transparency = verdict's still out It's not that his actions haven't done enough to change it. It's that his actions have done so much to perpetuate it. If you are going to rate "fail" for the first four catigories, then in fairness you should rate the last one as "accompished", because in reality, all the subjects are "verdict's still out". But I do not expect Obama to bring any sort of "change", same old politics From a differnt person. He already is making all govt. construction works to be required to pay union dues to the union, and only 16% of construction works are union workers, so all this really is, is a backdoor kickback to the Unions that helped him get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 He actually made great efforts to engage the Republicans. They have refused. He can't make them get on the dance floor he can only invite them to dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.htmlHas anybody seen this Politico story yet this morning? It basically confirms what we all knew; that all of this is a calculated effort by the Democrats to portray Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. This whole things shows just how petty the Obama administration can get when it comes to their permanent campaign mode and manipulating public perception. Some bipartisanship. Make your adversaries look foolish by purposefully misrepresenting their ideas and leadership. That has been clear for a while now to people paying attention. Here is my post on the first page from 2 days ago. God, Politico should pay me. Seems they are reading my posts. I don't really understand why you are upset about it though - on the scale of dirty politics this rates at a .0001 out of 10. They push Rush as the face of the party to create infighting amongst their opponents. Rahm Emanuel – Point. Set. Match. Well played sir. For about two weeks now it appeared as if the Dems were attempting to push Rush to be the face of the party. This is an extremely different strategy from years past. In the past, they just tried to ignore him and pray for the best. Now they have done a 180 and are attempting equate Rush = conservatism and even him as the face of the party. They see him as a wedge. They want him to be seen as the crazy alternative who “wants Obama to fail” at all costs. This will cause a rift in the conservative party – with moderates completely turned off. Then this week Rahm Emanuel on CBS’s Face the Nation said “He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Which was kind of the pinnacle of this strategy. Steele played right into the apparent trap set by Emmanuel with his comments against Rush. Now the question will be – will Rush take the bait as well or will he be smart enough to stay silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Again, from all practical standpoints, it's still too early to just announce failure.~Bang Sure, there's time to bring the grades back up. But facts are, he's already broken many campaign promises, as noted by the lies already spewed. And I'm to blame cause I voted for the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.htmlHas anybody seen this Politico story yet this morning? It basically confirms what we all knew; that all of this is a calculated effort by the Democrats to portray Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. This whole things shows just how petty the Obama administration can get when it comes to their permanent campaign mode and manipulating public perception. Some bipartisanship. Make your adversaries look foolish by purposefully misrepresenting their ideas and leadership. Wow, that vast left-wing conspiracy sure is powerful, huh? So, the Democrats made the chairman of the RNC attack the RNC's biggest Kool Aid distributor. And then they made him grovel less than a day later, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Bush took 8 years to lead this country striaght down the drain. Obama's been in office barely a month and he's supposed to fix 8 years of total waste. As for Rush Limbaugh. He's a jerk and an idiot. Anyone who would flat out hope that his presdient fails is an idiot. If McCain won I would never hope he failed. For what? He(Limbaugh) needs to be taken off the air. The scary thing is that a lot of Republicans are backing this idiot. You shouldn't hold a position in congress and hope the president fails. Thats flat out stupid. I didn't like Bush but why in the hell would I hope for him to fail. To see the economy in this shape isn't gonna help anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 That has been clear for a while now to people paying attention. Here is my post on the first page from 2 days ago. God, Politico should pay me. Seems they are reading my posts. I don't really understand why you are upset about it though - it is a very smart move by them. I said in my post that the article confirmed what we all knew, so congratulations but it was pretty easy to see that it was a deliberate strategy. Smart, sure. Ethical or honest, no. Am I the only one who sees a problem with manipulating public perception for your own political advantage? I guess when the Bush White House was paying people to go out and appear on TV and speak well of their policies it was just smart politics too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Anyone who would flat out hope that his presdient fails is an idiot. For what? He(Limbaugh) needs to be taken off the air. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt And your answer is to censor a detractor? What kind of government is that??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Wow, that vast left-wing conspiracy sure is powerful, huh? So, the Democrats made the chairman of the RNC attack the RNC's biggest Kool Aid distributor. And then they made him grovel less than a day later, too. Nope, Steele played right into it and he's a dummy for doing so. But this thing got rolling a while ago. It all started with the "I hope he fails" comment that was latched onto and repeated ad nauseam. Who benefits from Rush Limbaugh being the lead story every night, Democrats or Republicans? Does having him as the lead story really serve the American people well when there are much bigger issues at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.