Disappointed?

obtuseobserver · Aug 13, 2010

David said:
And you believed that? You really need to learn to tell the difference between promises that are real and politicking to make you vote for them.

No, I didn't believe them. I was shocked that they would offer the claim up and expect us to believe it.

Besides, dude was already in office - it wasn't a campaign promise

Ignoramus · Aug 16, 2010

David said:
The 1st thing our next president needs to do is void al debts. We're so far in the hole, they'd have to tax everyone over 100% to pay it off... For many years.

David said:
Bankruptcy is the only way out, unfortunately.

The Chinese wouldn?t like that. It seems that we have fiat money. Hyperinflation isn?t pretty. Right now, the Chinese are supporting our fiat money games. After losing a couple of trillion on the bankruptcy, they might not be too keen on supporting our monopoly money.
Actually, I don?t believe that it?s that difficult to get out of this mess. No, it?s impossible with the American public that we have today. However, if we had the American people of fifty years ago, not all that hard. World War II showed what we could do when we pulled together. If we could do that again, we can?t, not with the pigs and hogs we have today, but if we had the same kind of people, yeah, we could do it, and easy.
No, the next President will just play the same game of slop the hogs. Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but he had us on a barely survivable path. The Supreme Court, 9/11, Fox News and the Bush Cheney crowd tipped the balance. We were close before, damn close, now we have gone past the point of no return.
Now it?s up to who ever takes over after us to guide Earth through Mankind?s final century. I hope the Chinese will be kind. They won?t save us, but they could make our passing a little easier.

obtuseobserver · Aug 16, 2010

Ignoramus said:
The Chinese wouldn?t like that. It seems that we have fiat money. Hyperinflation isn?t pretty. Right now, the Chinese are supporting our fiat money games. After losing a couple of trillion on the bankruptcy, they might not be too keen on supporting our monopoly money.

Might be funny tanking their economy in the process though.

They hold under a trillion... $800 million or so last I heard.

I drop in the administration's bucket... whatcha worried about?

Ignoramus · Aug 17, 2010

otuseobserver said:
Might be funny tanking their economy in the process though.
They hold under a trillion... $800 million or so last I heard.
I drop in the administration's bucket... whatcha worried about?

I assume you meant $800 billion, recent figures put it at over 900 billion and declining, the Chinese are getting a bit nervous.
However, you overlooked their holdings in US Federal Reserve Notes.
From the CIA World Factbook
China:

Estimates of foreign reserves and gold.
$2.422 trillion (31 December 2009 est.)country comparison to the world: 1
$1.953 trillion (31 December 2008 est.)

I?m not sure what effect an American Federal Bankruptcy would have, but the world?s monopoly money is based on the #1 fiat currency, the US dollar. Since the United states has an external debt load of over 13 trillion, (CIA factbook) the ripple effects would be interesting, and avoiding hyperinflation in fiat currency would probably be the number one game world wide.
Yes, I know that the external debt load is not all government debt, but when the government goes belly up, who is left to bail anyone out?
If the United States did a national bankruptcy it would be set up to spare the oligarchy and screw everyone else. With the gutless public the US has at the moment, they would probably get away with it. The end result would be a big step towards a third World economy, if there is a big step left.
Since China has a centrally planned economy, and zero tolerance for economic BS, they would probably make it through the mess better than most countries. After all, they are doing a better job of getting through the current recession than any other major economy.
As for continuing to add to the two trillion dollars in monopoly money they already have, not too likely.

obtuseobserver · Aug 17, 2010

Ignoramus said:
I assume you meant $800 billion,

I did.

Ignoramus said:
recent figures put it at over 900 billion and declining, the Chinese are getting a bit nervous.

and who can blame them?

Ignoramus said:
However, you overlooked their holdings in US Federal Reserve Notes.
From the CIA World Factbook
China:

I?m not sure what effect an American Federal Bankruptcy would have, but the world?s monopoly money is based on the #1 fiat currency, the US dollar. Since the United states has an external debt load of over 13 trillion, (CIA factbook) the ripple effects would be interesting, and avoiding hyperinflation in fiat currency would probably be the number one game world wide.
Yes, I know that the external debt load is not all government debt, but when the government goes belly up, who is left to bail anyone out?
If the United States did a national bankruptcy it would be set up to spare the oligarchy and screw everyone else. With the gutless public the US has at the moment, they would probably get away with it. The end result would be a big step towards a third World economy, if there is a big step left.
Since China has a centrally planned economy, and zero tolerance for economic BS, they would probably make it through the mess better than most countries. After all, they are doing a better job of getting through the current recession than any other major economy.
As for continuing to add to the two trillion dollars in monopoly money they already have, not too likely.

you're right - I was referring to T-Bills and should have looked further

TortoiseDream · Aug 18, 2010

Dirk said:
Elected on a wave of populism and progressivism, he ditched the liberal image almost the moment he got into office. Wars continued, indeed escalated, in the case of Afghanistan, bail-outs for the rich continued, democracy and liberty continued to be suffocated with bureacracy and the bourgeoisie. Corporations, private tyrannies and the hyper-rich were perpetuated by Government support - both political and fiscal. Cosmetic changes were hailed as glorious victories.

So, the question is, did Obama disappoint your hopes (or for right-wingers, fears)?

Personally speaking, he didn't disappoint me - he did almost exactly as i'd expected when he was elected. It was quite funny, really. It's great watching people slide around to your way of thinking.

I didn't notice a different from the last clown. It was just more of the same nonsense.

obtuseobserver · Aug 18, 2010

other than quadrupling the deficit?

running the debt up 20 points in two years (GW ran it up 7 in eight years)

other than taking over the auto industry

etc etc?

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
other than quadrupling the deficit?

running the debt up 20 points in two years (GW ran it up 7 in eight years)

other than taking over the auto industry

etc etc?

That's only a difference of degree, though, not a fundamental difference. Obama is worse in my opinion, but only because he's Bush times 3. If Bush were somehow allowed to remain in office for 4 more years, I think you'd see some negligible changes.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
That's only a difference of degree, though, not a fundamental difference.

That's true. However if your body temp was 98.6 and the next day it was 106 it would be a matter of degree as well.

Degrees matter. If the degree is large it can hurt more and even kill.

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
That's true. However if your body temp was 98.6 and the next day it was 106 it would be a matter of degree as well.

Degrees matter. If the degree is large it can hurt more and even kill.

That's a poor example. It's more like Bush is a 104 degree fever, and Obama is a 105 degree fever. Both are fundamentally bad, but there's no fundamental difference between the two.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
That's a poor example. It's more like Bush is a 104 degree fever, and Obama is a 105 degree fever. Both are fundamentally bad, but there's no fundamental difference between the two.

now you're just arguing about the degree of degree

quadrupling the deficit and jumping the debt 20 points are matters of degree to be sure but 1 point they are not.

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
now you're just arguing about the degree of degree

quadrupling the deficit and jumping the debt 20 points are matters of degree to be sure but 1 point they are not.

... yes that's my point. The only difference between Bush and Obama is a difference of degree. It's the same thing, just bigger.

Ignoramus · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
other than quadrupling the deficit?
running the debt up 20 points in two years (GW ran it up 7 in eight years)
other than taking over the auto industry
etc etc?

I don?t expect you to be fair, but isn?t this absurd. The crash of 2008 happened on Bush Light?s watch. The auto bailout started on ?W??s watch. The financial bailouts started on ?W??s watch.
As you should know, fiscal year 2009 started on Bush?s watch.
So where did the deficit quadruple?
The twenty points thing I don?t get.
The deficit was 5.807 trillion on 9/28/01, the end of Clinton?s budget.
The deficit was 11.910 trillion on 9/30/09 the end of ?W??s budget.
Bush doubled it. If Obama lasts to 2017, then you can compare scores.
In order to equal Bush, he will have to have a deficit of 23.82 trillion, he?s still got a ways to go.
If he only makes four years, all comparisons are off, because that doesn?t give him time to shake off Bush?s caca.
Right now, he doesn?t have a fell year on his budget.
Today the deficit is 13.367 trillion.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/message.pdf
I have to admit Obama?s getting off to a nice start, but compared to Reagan, he?s a piker. Actually, most of Obama?s debt is from picking up the pieces after ?W?. Not saying he?s a fiscal conservative, but then neither was ?W?. I might note that both wars that Obama is fighting are legacy wars.
Read Bush?s absurd forecast for his 2009 budget.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/message.pdf
Oh yes, and of course, the Iraq war was off budget under Bush. A small and insignificant sum.
Obama stepped into it up to his neck. Nobody forced him, but it was a mess when he arrived. Now you are trying to rename the Bush recession the Obama depression.
What would McCain have done, give more tax cuts? That always cures deficits. Reagan proved that.
No, I?m not happy with Obama, but probably everything that I?m unhappy about, you probably want him to continue doing.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
... yes that's my point. The only difference between Bush and Obama is a difference of degree. It's the same thing, just bigger.

ok

agreed

ftr - wasn't ever happy with Congressional spending when the GOP was runninjg the place either... just even less happy now

Ignoramus said:
I don’t expect you to be fair, but isn’t this absurd.

That GW and the GOP spent too much is true. The numbers I cited were accurate. Obama has spent more and more quickly.

AK_ID · Aug 25, 2010

Much more, and much more quickly.

As to the OP question, no, I'm not disappointed. I expected little, and got it.

obtuseobserver · Aug 25, 2010

AK_ID said:
Much more, and much more quickly.

As to the OP question, no, I'm not disappointed. I expected little, and got it.

obviously you are not only unfair and stupid but you are absurd you ignorant peasant!

AK_ID · Aug 25, 2010

I try. ..............................................................................

obtuseobserver · Aug 25, 2010

lol...

was long ago now but the rabbi shmuley boteach was on some news program as a special guest and he called another special guest an ignorant peasant... never forgot that one. so damn funny

found a transcript... live... damn funny... dude was spitting tacks and coming unglued over The Passion of the Christ. If you recall it was supposed to lead to Americans tossing Jews in ovens and whatnot. Yet another example of rampant American bigotry suspected and feared by the left that never materialized.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Let the Rabbi speak. Go ahead.

BOTEACH: What bothers me, Jennifer, is that you‘re an ignorant peasant who doesn‘t even know Christian text, for God‘s sake.

What the New Testament said is that the high priest, who was a Sadducee, who was an agent of Rome, who worked directly for Pontius Pilate, had a problem with Jesus and reported him to Pilate and had him killed.

GIROUX: And the New Testament also says...

(CROSSTALK)

BOTEACH: The pharisees, excuse me, saved his life. Luke Chapter 13, Verse 31, open it right now and read it. You are an ignorant peasant.

Fact is Boteach was more familiar with the text and historical context than Giroux and he went off on her... I'm Christian and I was amused. Don't fuck with hebrew scholars.. they know their shit backwards in their sleep better than most "bible church" ministers know the best escorts and meth dealers in town

Gunny · Aug 29, 2010

So, the question is, did Obama disappoint your hopes (or for right-wingers, fears)?

While I didn't vote for Obama I hoped, as every American should, that he would succeed.

So far he has disappointed me.

Here's just a few of the reasons.

1) Divides the parties further instead of bringing them together for the greater good of the nation.

2) Appointed the absolute worst AG in American history.

3) Let the New Black Panthers off the hook.

4) Appointed an extreme, radical, inexperienced individual to the Supreme Court.

5) His Stimulus plan has been a colossal failure.

6) Pulling out of Iraq too soon.

7) Apology-Fest.

8) Interfering with the Arizona Immigration laws.

9) Weak on illegal immigration.

10) Obama Care

11) Cash or Clunkers was a failure.

12) Auto bailouts.

I still think Obama can turn this ship around and eave a positive legacy but it's appearing more and more each day this will not happen.

David · Aug 30, 2010

Gunny said:
While I didn't vote for Obama I hoped, as every American should, that he would succeed.

So far he has disappointed me.

Here's just a few of the reasons.

1) Divides the parties further instead of bringing them together for the greater good of the nation.

2) Appointed the absolute worst AG in American history.

3) Let the New Black Panthers off the hook.

4) Appointed an extreme, radical, inexperienced individual to the Supreme Court.

5) His Stimulus plan has been a colossal failure.

6) Pulling out of Iraq too soon.

7) Apology-Fest.

8) Interfering with the Arizona Immigration laws.

9) Weak on illegal immigration.

10) Obama Care

11) Cash or Clunkers was a failure.

12) Auto bailouts.

I still think Obama can turn this ship around and eave a positive legacy but it's appearing more and more each day this will not happen.

Not an Obama supporter but...

1. The Repubs are as much to bale with all that filibusterering and hateful rhetoric.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. And racist.

5. Not really. Few effects will be immediate and most of the projects were under the radar stuff, like scientific surveys and the like.

6. A few months is too soon? Need I remind you we were bound by treaty to leave?

7. Politicking at it's finest.

8. They were unconstitutional. But I agree.

9. Agreed.

10. Too weak.

11. It was a major success, actually.

12. The auto companies are profitable as opposed to history, so I have to disagree.

Disappointed?

Similar threads