"Obama says he inherited economic problems"

[Anonymous]

sometimes I post before my thoughts are finished, could be a-d-d. You know when you have a feeling about something and takes time to put into words. I think Obama's probablility of crashing when we tries to fly jets like Bush did, kind of sums it up.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, he did.

It never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that someone is going to come into office, snap their fingers, and POOF everything is fixed.

It's not going to take 4 years. It's probably not even going to take 8. I think 10 -20 is far more realistic. It's just like weight - easy enough to pack on the pounds, very hard to even shed the first one...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even Bush is a superior leader than Obama. Maybe since Bush flew fighter jets in the air guard, he has more guts? I seriously believe if Obama tried to fly a fighter jet.....it would probably crash. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

Oh did Bush see combat? I thought he was in the National Guard and was absent for half of it.

Is draft dodging gutsy? Yes, probably.

[Anonymous]

then the question is... if it's going to take 8-20 yrs, then does it really matter who is president?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:then the question is... if it's going to take 8-20 yrs, then does it really matter who is president?

Not if you don't care about 12 years of a crappy economy.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:then the question is... if it's going to take 8-20 yrs, then does it really matter who is president?

Not if you don't care about 12 years of a crappy economy.

does not compute. so are you for or against obama's reelection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-inherited-economic-problems-001543865.html

I get that, but he isn't doing anything to solve them, so what makes him think he deserves another chance?

Just to put things in perspective:

Here’s a chart of real GDP during the Great Depression:

As you can see, the upshot is that output re-obtained 1929 levels in 1936, seven years after the Depression began or in the fourth year of the Roosevelt administration.

Now here’s our current Great Recession. We haven’t yet re-obtained 2008 levels of output. But it seems overwhelmingly likely that we’ll do so in less time than seven years from the start of the recession and before the fourth year of the Obama administration. In terms of Obama’s re-election prospects, the two situations aren’t even slightly equivalent. FDR took the helm of a country in an incredibly deep ditch and presided over rapid growth. Obama took the helm of a country whose economy was declining at a terrifying pace and turned that around into slow growth. The evidence suggests that you’d much rather be in an FDR-style situation than an Obama-style situation if you want to be popular and win elections. And if you want to undertake a broad legislative reform agenda, it’s very helpful to be popular and win elections.
But none of that should obscure the fact that there’s precious little evidence that FDR’s recovery policies were any more effective than Obama’s were. “Things were getting worse at a terrifying rapid pace and would have gotten much worse had I not intervened” is a lame campaign message, but it’s a pretty impressive achievement. I wish more had been done, but the reality is that there are no historical examples I can think of that feature a large economy in a comparable hole doing better.

(http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/08/290349/the-depression-and-our-recession/)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all he is not leadership material. He reads from a teleprompter so he won't screw up. He bowls and throws like a handicapped person. He gets stitches playing basketball. His economic philosophy is childish. He has thin skin and can't handle criticism. He blames all his problems on other people. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He has never participated in the private sector or had a normal job. He is unable to communicate in an uplifting manner. People just instinctively shy away from following him. outside that...he seems like a pretty nice guy.

I don't mean to insult anyone's children, but this critique has all the thoughtfulness and subtlety of a five-year-old. Oh, and frankly, the "teleprompter" thing is just bizarre. For whatever you want to say about Obama, he's probably the most gifted orator of his generation. The shame is he never bothers to use it.

But the "Obama uses a teleprompter" is like a palliative for deeply racist fucktards who can't imagine that a black man knows how to speak in public. Every modern president has used one, but no, unlike Reagan, the two Bushes, and Clinton, Obama does it because he's too stupid to speak on his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sometimes I post before my thoughts are finished

How about a short moratorium while you gather your thoughts. Twelve years should suffice.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:then the question is... if it's going to take 8-20 yrs, then does it really matter who is president?

Not if you don't care about 12 years of a crappy economy.

does not compute. so are you for or against obama's reelection?

Well, for that moment, I was focused on being against idiocy, namely you suggesting that a 20-year recession is no worse than an 8-year recession.

Since you asked, I will almost certainly oppose the Republican candidate, and I will oppose Obama marginally less. That means that I won't vote for a major party candidate for president, as I never have done (since '88 ).

[Anonymous]

Obama inherited a AAA rating.

[Anonymous]

Maybe since Bush flew fighter jets in the air guard, he has more guts?

If Bush had guts, he would have been flying them in Vietnam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes when you are a guy and you are uncoordinated like the President, it negatively effects your leadership of other men. Just a possibility.

Gerald Ford walking down the stairs of AF1 anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama inherited a AAA rating.

And a financial meltdown, TARP, three trillion in extra debt, a tax cut that was according to the outgoing president supposed to be "temporary stimulus" (wow, that worked) and a Dow at 8000.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:then the question is... if it's going to take 8-20 yrs, then does it really matter who is president?

Not if you don't care about 12 years of a crappy economy.

does not compute. so are you for or against obama's reelection?

Well, for that moment, I was focused on being against idiocy, namely you suggesting that a 20-year recession is no worse than an 8-year recession.

Since you asked, I will almost certainly oppose the Republican candidate, and I will oppose Obama marginally less. That means that I won't vote for a major party candidate for president, as I never have done (since '88 ).

Unfortunately, it's this kind of supposedly independent thinking that resulted in the Bush presidency and the ensuing downward spiral we are in now. In this country you are better off settling for the lesser evil.