If anything, if you went back and compared Obama's policies to Reagan's or Clinton's, he'd best be considered a moderate. There isn't much "extreme" or "far left" about him. The only people who consider him to be a far left extremist are the far right Tea Party extremists.

Reality check: Consider that Reagan was a big-government guy, raised taxes, gave amnesty to illegals and increased the deficit. What was considered conservatism 30 years ago is moderate by today's standards, because the far right has moved farther and farther to the right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never voted for either Bush and voted for Obama twice. Regret voting for Obama in 2012 as I think he's lost it and now is a left-wing equivalent of a Tea Party politician. I think he simply panders to those in American society who have no respect for the principles on which the country was founded, see themselves as best able to advance themselves by portraying themselves as victims, and would like to engage in a massive redistribution of wealth. The sooner 2016 comes, the better.

It seems implausible that you would have voted for Obama once, if not twice. You are bringing up points from the 2008 campaign.

Yes, I made this all up just so you could opine on its plausibility?

We don't get do-overs at the ballot box and I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to cast a vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it. All I can say is that my cumulative frustration with this administration has kicked in since the 2012 election and that it's a vote I now regret. I recognize this President is dealing with a Republican opposition that hasn't ever been very interested in working with him, but I still wish he were a better leader.

Artificial 0 percent fed funds rate is indicative of an economy on life support and essentially in a coma. If it's healthy, you take it off the respirator to set rates at what they really are.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ BS. The fed funds rate is zero. That's money printing and it's never going to end because they are in the financial roach motel. Easy to get in, impossible to get out. Head fakes all over the place... No way allow the market to set rates.

i don't know how to debate insults and analogies. If you want to reply with a substantive economic statement, I will respond.

Anonymous wrote:Massive money printing is not running an economy. It's easy and irresponsible. If it's so wonderful why don't they just announce that they will do it forever and were mistaken not to always do it since the beginning of time ?

Different circumstances call for different strategies.

Don't be a child.

Massive money printing is not running an economy. It's easy and irresponsible. If it's so wonderful why don't they just announce that they will do it forever and were mistaken not to always do it since the beginning of time ?

Anonymous wrote:Printing trillions of fiat dollars is not "fixing " the economy. A kindergartner can draw money with crayons the is much more artistic .

The only real fix component came from fracking which is a conservative initiative.

You may think talking about fiat currency makes you sound like you know something but actually it makes you sound like a crank.

^^^ BS. The fed funds rate is zero. That's money printing and it's never going to end because they are in the financial roach motel. Easy to get in, impossible to get out. Head fakes all over the place... No way allow the market to set rates.

Anonymous wrote:Printing trillions of fiat dollars is not "fixing " the economy. A kindergartner can draw money with crayons the is much more artistic .

The only real fix component came from fracking which is a conservative initiative.

Yet if you want to buy a house, you borrow money to do it and it is considered sensible. OK. You probably borrow two or three times your income. We borrowed one fourth of our income. The interest rates we pay are low and inflation is low, two good indicators that we did not do something stupid. The program has ended, so if the chickens are going to come home to roost, they will have plenty of roosting time before Obama is out of office.



BTW fracking was developed because Jimmy Carter funded it in the 70s. It was not a Republican initiative.

Anonymous wrote:^^ the reason he had to deal with republicans is that people voted them in to stop Obama.

Yet they voted him into office, twice. That's quite a logical conundrum for you.

Printing trillions of fiat dollars is not "fixing " the economy. A kindergartner can draw money with crayons the is much more artistic .

The only real fix component came from fracking which is a conservative initiative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never voted for either Bush and voted for Obama twice. Regret voting for Obama in 2012 as I think he's lost it and now is a left-wing equivalent of a Tea Party politician. I think he simply panders to those in American society who have no respect for the principles on which the country was founded, see themselves as best able to advance themselves by portraying themselves as victims, and would like to engage in a massive redistribution of wealth. The sooner 2016 comes, the better.

That's who he always was. That's what conservatives were ringing the alarm bells about. The man is a great orator, and was able to fool a lot of people. That some are now seeing past it is a great thing, but a group of us knew these last two years were going to be the most dangerous for the nation, and he is certainly proving that.

Yeah, I'll take the "danger" that includes repairing our Republican-ravaged economy and making progress on civil liberties, thanks.

Anonymous wrote:Never voted for either Bush and voted for Obama twice. Regret voting for Obama in 2012 as I think he's lost it and now is a left-wing equivalent of a Tea Party politician. I think he simply panders to those in American society who have no respect for the principles on which the country was founded, see themselves as best able to advance themselves by portraying themselves as victims, and would like to engage in a massive redistribution of wealth. The sooner 2016 comes, the better.

That's who he always was. That's what conservatives were ringing the alarm bells about. The man is a great orator, and was able to fool a lot of people. That some are now seeing past it is a great thing, but a group of us knew these last two years were going to be the most dangerous for the nation, and he is certainly proving that.

^^ the reason he had to deal with republicans is that people voted them in to stop Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama twice. No regrets. I was listening to his year end press conference yesterday and thinking: man, I like this guy.

He's had an impossibly difficult task and has still managed to move this country ahead. I think history will regard him kindly, and not because of his skin color.

I think recent history will be kind to him because of his skin color but I think long term history will show he was a disaster. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice guy but he was not ready and has made many many poor choices that down the line will show his inadequacy

I think in 20 years the historians will marvel at how he got so much of his agenda complete with so little cooperation from the Republicans. That said, I think it will also mark a point at which both parties openly support domestic spying. We are in for a rough few decades on civil liberties.

You may think of this as some sort of disaster. But historians will remember that the economy was better than the one he started with. As for foreign policy, the consensus will be that occupation of the Middle East always sows chaos. It was true for the British and the French (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine). It was true for the Soviets (Afghanistan). Now it's true for us (Iraq, Afghanistan). As for racial tensions, history usually favors the progressive. Go look back at the footage of the white business and political leaders in the South during the civil rights movement, complaining about agitators, telling people that people were happy before the NAACP came to town. I'm sure they thought they made perfect sense at the time, but history does not judge them favorably.