Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

Ohh oh - Mr. President - the "shovel ready" jokes aren't very funny - IMO.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../06/obama-jokes-about-shovel-ready-projects/1

""Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected," Obama said."

 

[WhoWee]

The "Misery Index" is back in the news.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/misertyindex-economy/2011/06/17/id/400456?s=al&promo_code=C789-1

"The latest “Misery Index” shows that Americans are more miserable than they’ve been in the past 28 years, economically speaking.

The monthly index, an unofficial measurement created by economist Arthur Okun back in the 1970s using the simple premise to total the inflation and unemployment rates, is now 62 percent higher than when President Barack Obama first took office in 2009."

 

[Char. Limit]

Well, duh. With all this rhetoric spewing from both sides, I'm miserable too.

 

[WhoWee]

Was this an anti-war speech?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_re_us/us_us_afghanistan_text

What do you suppose this means?
"America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home."

 

[Ryumast3r]

I think it means that we've spent the last decade "building" other nations, while ours has shouldered the costs and that maybe now we should spend all that time/money/dedication to ourselves.

 

[Char. Limit]

I think it means that we've spent the last decade "building" other nations, while ours has shouldered the costs and that maybe now we should spend all that time/money/dedication to ourselves.

Which, IMHO, sounds like a good idea and one that the American people, including (perhaps) Tea Partiers could agree with. Wouldn't they agree that we should stop spending money on foreign nations and start spending it on our own?

 

[Al68]

Which, IMHO, sounds like a good idea and one that the American people, including (perhaps) Tea Partiers could agree with. Wouldn't they agree that we should stop spending money on foreign nations and start spending it on our own?

I think most tea partiers would say to reduce both, assuming you're referring to government spending,

 

[Char. Limit]

I think most tea partiers would say to reduce both, assuming you're referring to government spending.

Not really referring to anything specific at the moment. Government spending, tax cut, reducing the debt, they're all things that help THIS nation, rather than a foreign one.

 

[WhoWee]

Which, IMHO, sounds like a good idea and one that the American people, including (perhaps) Tea Partiers could agree with. Wouldn't they agree that we should stop spending money on foreign nations and start spending it on our own?

When you say "start spending it on our own" - unless yo're talking about debt retirement - we don't need any additional spending.

 

[russ_watters]

I would state that more affirmatively: imo, additional spending (over 2008) is harmful to our long term economy.

 

[WhoWee]

I would state that more affirmatively: imo, additional spending (over 2008) is harmful to our long term economy.

Absolutely!

IMO - all of the President's spending needs to be reviewed. Consider the surprise we heard about yesterday:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/twist-obamas-health-care-law

"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

Up to 3 million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. "

Again - this is what happens when legislation is 2,000+ pages and nobody reads it before they vote.

 

[BobG]

Was this an anti-war speech?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_re_us/us_us_afghanistan_text

What do you suppose this means?
"America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home."

He stole that phrase almost word for word from Jon Huntsman.

What we need now is a healthy dose of nation-building here at home.

That doesn't help Huntsman in the GOP primaries, but Huntsman isn't the only Republican that's beginning to eye the money spent on foreign wars as an attractive place to cut spending.

There's one critical key to US counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan that the US can't control - Karzai. When Karzai's goals don't match ours and he makes no effort to take advantage of the space the counter-insurgency fight gives him, people eventually start getting the impression that the US is just wasting its time, money, and servicemembers.

And, to be honest, it's hard to find any reason to think Afghanistan, and the people most likely to have power in Afghanistan, would change because three buildings in the US were destroyed or damaged; or because it was the US that invaded instead of the Soviets that invaded. Afghanistan is Afghanistan and the problems it's experienced for decades will continue to plague Afghanistan for decades.

The only legitimate reason to be in Afghanistan is to fulfill US goals - which were to cripple al-Qaida and to send a message that a nation's government was responsible for the people in that nation.

In that sense, I think our presence in Afghanistan does serve some purpose (we can launch drone attacks against al-Qaida targets on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border), but I don't ever see much coming from our efforts to develop a stable democratic government in Afghanistan.

You'll see the same thing happen in at least a few (and perhaps most?) of the countries that tossed out their leaders in the Arab Spring. Not all are really ready to transition to a stable democracy.

 

[WhoWee]

He stole that phrase almost word for word from Jon Huntsman.

That's a GREAT FIND Bob!:rofl:

 

[BobG]

He stole that phrase almost word for word from Jon Huntsman.

That's a GREAT FIND Bob!:rofl:

Well, considering Huntsman said it yesterday morning (in helping to introduce his candidacy) and Obama said it yesterday evening, it wasn't a very difficult find. Usually, etiquette dictates you wait a little longer than 8 hours before stealing an opponent's material.

 

[WhoWee]

Who said the President doesn't have a clear (emergency?) energy policy?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6926118-targeting-gas-prices-obama-administration-taps-strategic-oil-reserve

"Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the reserve, which the department calls "a key tool of foreign policy," are made by the president in the event of an "energy emergency." Prior to today's announcement, the reserve has been used under these circumstances just twice -- during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

IMO - the emergency in this case is poor polling results in accordance with gas prices?

 

[turbo]

Before we all get gleeful about Obama's nation-building remarks, it might be a good idea to get some historical perspective. He has used the same imagery and similar words for over 5 years.

Noting, "America is at a crossroads," Obama argued that we must stop politicians from engaging in business as usual. He quipped, "When George Bush said that he didn't believe in nation building, I didn't know that he was talking about this nation." He challenged his Washington, DC, audience to dream the big dream, to imagine an America that includes everyone, rather than the fortunate few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/nation-building-obama-sty_b_20923.html

 

[WhoWee]

Before we all get gleeful about Obama's nation-building remarks, it might be a good idea to get some historical perspective. He has used the same imagery and similar words for over 5 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/nation-building-obama-sty_b_20923.html

A 12 year old boy explained the nation building idea to me a few minutes ago - he overheard my conversation with his mother.

The youngster informed me the new immigrants from Mexico were going to get jobs and pay taxes so everyone else can retire.

I asked him what his career plans were - he just shrugged and asked his mom if he could have some money to go to the dollar store.

 

[BobG]

The youngster informed me the new immigrants from Mexico were going to get jobs and pay taxes so everyone else can retire.

This is certainly my hope for Social Security.

All these American kids have entitlement issues and complain that Social Security taxes are too high! What the heck to they expect old people to do?! Get a job?

 

[Al68]

Before we all get gleeful about Obama's nation-building remarks, it might be a good idea to get some historical perspective. He has used the same imagery and similar words for over 5 years.

...He quipped, "When George Bush said that he didn't believe in nation building, I didn't know that he was talking about this nation."...

He wasn't. Right-wingers aren't against nation building in the U.S., we're against nation building in the U.S. by government. Huge difference.

 

[Char. Limit]

When you say "start spending it on our own" - unless yo're talking about debt retirement - we don't need any additional spending.

Not really referring to anything specific at the moment. Government spending, tax cut, reducing the debt, they're all things that help THIS nation, rather than a foreign one.

You, ah, did see this post, right?

 

[Ryumast3r]

It worked for FDR... I'm just saying (the government involvement thing... anyway).I think the point is that right now we're dedicating huge amounts of time to Iraq and Afghanistan (and to a lesser extent Libya), and we really should be focusing all that attention to ourselves. While Iraq and Afghanistan may have gone somewhat to the wayside, there are still troops there, people dying, etc, and that makes us lose focus on the nation-building that needs to be done at home.

 

[drankin]

One thing that Obama may not have considered is when all these boys come home there won't be many jobs for them. Adding to the unemployment numbers.

 

[Ryumast3r]

There's still the military, unless he downsizes the military. They still get paid outside of combat... they just don't do anything.

 

[turbo]

And remember, a lot of the men and women who come home will probably be reservists - many of whom operated small businesses of their own before being called up. Hopefully, some of those people still have assets and customers and can return to productive employment.

Anyway, I doubt that Obama is short-sighted enough to have not considered employment for returning vets.

Also, if we wish to consider actual facts instead of ideological rhetoric, we have to be cognizant of the fact that if Obama brings home 10,000 troops this year, that's only 0.00125% of the 8 million US unemployed. Minuscule, in the large picture.

 

[drankin]

There's still the military, unless he downsizes the military. They still get paid outside of combat... they just don't do anything.

I don't know the percentage I believe it is safe to say a large number of them are activated national guardsmen. Once they come how they will be deactivated. Maybe someone knows where we can find those numbers?

 

[Al68]

It worked for FDR... I'm just saying (the government involvement thing... anyway).

Sure, if by "worked" you mean prolonging the depression into a decade plus long massive depression with double digit unemployment. The only people who believe government helped instead of hurt the economy then are the same ones who think Obama has been helping it now: sheeple who don't know any better.

 

[drankin]

Notice that a bulk of the troops won't be brought back until just before the next election. And the unemployment numbers won't come out until after.

 

[turbo]

Notice that a bulk of the troops won't be brought back until just before the next election. And the unemployment numbers won't come out until after.

Do the numbers. Bringing home 30K troops (if they are all unemployed) would be a blip of less than four 100ths of a percent in the national unemployment figures. Maybe it's just too fun to bash Obama.

We have two very expensive wars that have to be drawn down, and that's not real easy. There is little cooperation from the kleptocrats in Afghanistan, and there are warring factions in Iraq that would probably throw the country into a full-out civil war if our presence abruptly ended. "If you broke it you bought it!"

 

[Al68]

There's still the military, unless he downsizes the military. They still get paid outside of combat... they just don't do anything.

Wow! Now you know that statement will stir up some anger.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Sure, if by "worked" you mean prolonging the depression into a decade plus long massive depression with double digit unemployment. The only people who believe government helped instead of hurt the economy then are the same ones who think Obama has been helping it now: sheeple who don't know any better.

Including the many many many economists who have said the exact same thing I have? I'm not trusting my own opinion, I trust theirs, since, you know, they study that kind of thing.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I'll just add to my post above:Every year that FDR was in office for his first two terms, unemployment fell. The only exceptions being in 1937 and 1938. The numbers only say that unemployment grew if you count government workers as "Unemployed" which they aren't, since they are doing a job and getting paid for it (thus "employed").

Also during FDR's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at rates of between 9-10%, massive growth for a depression if you ask me.

20% of banks failed when Hoover did nothing, each one that failed leading to the next one failing due to a lack of programs like the FDIC, as people didn't think their money was safe in a bank, opting instead for the good ol' mattress. That is, until FDR stabilized the banks through the FDIC and other programs.

The growth wasn't only in government jobs though, the private sector also grew. With the banks stabilizing, small businesses could pull money in and out, invest it, reinvest, get loans, whatever they needed again without fear of the bank disappearing the next day.

If that isn't proof enough, the two years in which unemployment grew (1937-1938) are the two years in which FDR pulled back his New Deal program because conservatives asked him to. They said "balance the budget - or try to" so he raised taxes and cut spending, and the depression continued because of this until a new bailout of sorts came along in the form of WWII.

 

[BobG]

I don't know the percentage I believe it is safe to say a large number of them are activated national guardsmen. Once they come how they will be deactivated. Maybe someone knows where we can find those numbers?

They'll get their old jobs back because of the http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/userra.htm.

On the other hand, the recent history of prolonged deployments could make it hard for a person to change jobs or get a job in the first place if they advertise that they're in the Reserves or National Guard. What was once considered an asset, or at least a positive character trait, can turn into a liability if the employer realizes they're hiring an employee that may disappear for prolonged periods of time and that has to be rehired when they do reappear.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'll just add to my post above:


Every year that FDR was in office for his first two terms, unemployment fell. The only exceptions being in 1937 and 1938. The numbers only say that unemployment grew if you count government workers as "Unemployed" which they aren't, since they are doing a job and getting paid for it (thus "employed").

Also during FDR's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at rates of between 9-10%, massive growth for a depression if you ask me.

20% of banks failed when Hoover did nothing, each one that failed leading to the next one failing due to a lack of programs like the FDIC, as people didn't think their money was safe in a bank, opting instead for the good ol' mattress. That is, until FDR stabilized the banks through the FDIC and other programs.

The growth wasn't only in government jobs though, the private sector also grew. With the banks stabilizing, small businesses could pull money in and out, invest it, reinvest, get loans, whatever they needed again without fear of the bank disappearing the next day.

If that isn't proof enough, the two years in which unemployment grew (1937-1938) are the two years in which FDR pulled back his New Deal program because conservatives asked him to. They said "balance the budget - or try to" so he raised taxes and cut spending, and the depression continued because of this until a new bailout of sorts came along in the form of WWII.

Although I agree with you here, you should probably source your info. Just sayin'.

 

[Al68]

Including the many many many economists who have said the exact same thing I have? I'm not trusting my own opinion, I trust theirs, since, you know, they study that kind of thing.

The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy? Most people don't admit to it so openly.

Anyway, a little research will show that economists are actually very divided on the issue, and always have been. Non-Keynesian economists generally agree that FDR's policies made the situation far worse, while Keynesian economists say otherwise. The same disagreement exists today: economics is divided into ideological camps.

IMO, Keynesian economics is nothing more than a cover for left-wingers believing whatever serves their agenda. It has been used by the left as a license to steal since FDR.

 

[Char. Limit]

The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy? Most people don't admit to it so openly.

Quoted from Wiki:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

What was that again?