Disappointed?

Dirk · Jan 25, 2010

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.

myp · Jan 25, 2010

Dirk said:
Personally speaking, he didn't disappoint me - he did almost exactly as i'd expected when he was elected.

That sentence about sums it up for me. Anyone who bothered to look at the facts instead of just the sugar-coated top realized that he was still a big government liberal who had already been heavily tied to special interest groups- namely big pharma and that his policies would not only continue the big government corporatism we have seen of late but push it to a larger scale. The continuation of Bush's policies in Iraq was no surprise either. I'll admit though I hoped he would follow-up on his goals for transparency and separating lobbyists from the White House that he described to the American people the day after he was elected. Unfortunately, that was nothing more than blatant lies as well as operating procedure in that area is still the same.

deanhills · Jan 26, 2010

Perhaps Obama's marketing campaign was so good, and people so disillusioned with Bush in 2008, that they could be forgiven for wanting to believe that Obama could have made a difference? But could he have made a difference though, given a political system that comes with an enormous and complicated debt load, heavy Government with layers of bureacracy, and policies that have become so entrenched, difficult to change them. He would have had to have been a revolutionary along the lines of Che Guevara in order to make meaningful changes, instead he is doing much of the same that has been done before as he is probably hoping to be elected a second time round.

DodgeFB · Jan 26, 2010

deanhills said:
Perhaps Obama's marketing campaign was so good, and people so disillusioned with Bush in 2008, that they could be forgiven for wanting to believe that Obama could have made a difference? But could he have made a difference though, given a political system that comes with an enormous and complicated debt load, heavy Government with layers of bureacracy, and policies that have become so entrenched, difficult to change them. He would have had to have been a revolutionary along the lines of Che Guevara in order to make meaningful changes, instead he is doing much of the same that has been done before as he is probably hoping to be elected a second time round.

He sure has not helped the "debt load" any.

I don't think I could have been anymore disappointed than I was the night he was elected. Not so much in him, but in the people who elected him. I just could not believe they would fall for that dog and pony show again.

David · Jan 26, 2010

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.

Bankruptcy is the only way out, unfortunately.

deanhills · Jan 27, 2010

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

Well said. The system did want to fail in September of 2008, and they should have allowed the banks to fail, so that they could start from scratch again. Instead they just manufactured more money, bailed the banks out, and Wall Street is partying all over again. Wonder how long that is going to last this time round?

David · Jan 27, 2010

deanhills said:
Well said. The system did want to fail in September of 2008, and they should have allowed the banks to fail, so that they could start from scratch again. Instead they just manufactured more money, bailed the banks out, and Wall Street is partying all over again. Wonder how long that is going to last this time round?

I'll give credit were credit is due, the gov't did stop a new depression. The problem is the system hasn't been reformed and the stimulus, not economic recovery, is the only thing keeping them going. The money will run out, people will still not have jobs and the system will once more fail. It will ether fail even harder then it would have last time or it will be bailed out. If it's bailed out, then it will only fail later and even worse then next time, let alone last.

deanhills · Jan 29, 2010

David said:
I'll give credit were credit is due, the gov't did stop a new depression.

I don't agree. They simply delayed it. What we see right now is exactly how it was BEFORE the party came to a stop in September 2008. Huge hikes in Wall Street that do not make sense. Enormous unemployment, huge Government that is supporting the rich who are supporting Government to become even BIGGER. Big Banks are still BIG, perhaps even BIGGER than before. Your little man in the street has become smaller and even less significant than before.

David · Jan 29, 2010

deanhills said:
I don't agree. They simply delayed it. What we see right now is exactly how it was BEFORE the party came to a stop in September 2008. Huge hikes in Wall Street that do not make sense. Enormous unemployment, huge Government that is supporting the rich who are supporting Government to become even BIGGER. Big Banks are still BIG, perhaps even BIGGER than before. Your little man in the street has become smaller and even less significant than before.

Read everything that came after that. :giggle:

deanhills · Jan 29, 2010

David said:
I'll give credit were credit is due, the gov't did stop a new depression. The problem is the system hasn't been reformed and the stimulus, not economic recovery, is the only thing keeping them going. The money will run out, people will still not have jobs and the system will once more fail. It will ether fail even harder then it would have last time or it will be bailed out. If it's bailed out, then it will only fail later and even worse then next time, let alone last.

Oops sorry David .... looks as though we are in perfect agreement and you could not have said it better. :redface:

Kyuubi · Jan 29, 2010

David said:
I'll give credit were credit is due, the gov't did stop a new depression.

Hate to say but I tend to disagree. The bail out money wasn't well spent, and unemployment is still slowly increasing. Add to that he more than quadrupled the national debt from the amount it took 8 years for Bush to get. 40,000 dollars of debt for every single man, woman, and child... :\

And on top of that he's turning into another Jimmy Carter... he's got three years to turn that around, and I hope he does... but honestly if the first year is any indication....

Dirk · Jan 29, 2010

Kyuubi said:
Hate to say but I tend to disagree.

I don't. Let's take a look at your reasons.

The bail out money wasn't well spent,

Here i agree - presuming that it should have been done, any keynesian would tear their hair out in desperation.

unemployment is still slowly increasing.

I agree, but preventing a depression was about money, not people. David didn't say they helped ordinary people. The bailout was for the rich - a bourgeois bailout.

Add to that he more than quadrupled the national debt from the amount it took 8 years for Bush to get. 40,000 dollars of debt for every single man, woman, and child... :\

You are mistaken about the value of that. Government revenue has little to do with the Greater Economy. That the taxpayer must pay through their noses for it is of little consequence to the bankers' little crisis.

DodgeFB · Jan 29, 2010

Kyuubi said:
Hate to say but I tend to disagree. The bail out money wasn't well spent, and unemployment is still slowly increasing. Add to that he more than quadrupled the national debt from the amount it took 8 years for Bush to get. 40,000 dollars of debt for every single man, woman, and child... :\

And on top of that he's turning into another Jimmy Carter... he's got three years to turn that around, and I hope he does... but honestly if the first year is any indication....

Finally!! Someone else sees he is another Jimmy Carter!

David · Jan 29, 2010

Kyuubi said:
Hate to say but I tend to disagree. The bail out money wasn't well spent, and unemployment is still slowly increasing. Add to that he more than quadrupled the national debt from the amount it took 8 years for Bush to get. 40,000 dollars of debt for every single man, woman, and child... :\

And on top of that he's turning into another Jimmy Carter... he's got three years to turn that around, and I hope he does... but honestly if the first year is any indication....

I didn't say any of that. As I said already, read everything that came after that.

Kyuubi · Jan 29, 2010

David said:
I didn't say any of that. As I said already, read everything that came after that.

The rest I agree with actually... But the idea that we were going into a cataclysmic depression is something I dispute, well rather not sure anymore since Obama's policies could still very well do enough damage assuming the first year trend continues.

Dirk said:
You are mistaken about the value of that. Government revenue has little to do with the Greater Economy. That the taxpayer must pay through their noses for it is of little consequence to the bankers' little crisis.

It has broader implications that affect the value of the US dollar though, and in the long term wouldn't inflation become an issue as far as the debt is concerned?*

Dirk · Jan 29, 2010

Kyuubi said:
It has broader implications that affect the value of the US dollar though, and in the long term wouldn't inflation become an issue as far as the debt is concerned?*

*shrugs* The dollar's value has been kept artificially high anyway.

Inflation is always an issue. The debt will be payed off by taxpayers - as i say, ordinary people pay for the rich to maintain their positions. If you're bourgeois, you don't have to pay for your own mistakes - that's for ordinary people to do.

David · Jan 30, 2010

Dirk said:
*shrugs* The dollar's value has been kept artificially high anyway.

Inflation is always an issue. The debt will be payed off by taxpayers - as i say, ordinary people pay for the rich to maintain their positions. If you're bourgeois, you don't have to pay for your own mistakes - that's for ordinary people to do.

Not always, we saw deflation last quarter.

Nemo · Jan 30, 2010

If you believe the politicians, there never is a day of reckoning; we can keep borrowing and spending, and never have to pay the money back. Our Ship of State has become a "ship of fools."

DodgeFB · Jan 30, 2010

Nemo said:
If you believe the politicians, there never is a day of reckoning; we can keep borrowing and spending, and never have to pay the money back. Our Ship of State has become a "ship of fools."

Agreed! And to be absolutely honest, I really don't see a "Captain" capable of righting our ship anytime soon. And that means looking right or left. Very depressing.

Nemo · Jan 30, 2010

We have a very capable man at the helm; it is the crew that is not all on-board.

Disappointed?

Similar threads