PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Could it have been and can it be worse than Obama?


FishingRod
08-19-2011, 10:01 AM
I have been struggling with a thought for the last year or two that I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my mind around. In short we might have been even worse off with McCain than Obama. I know, worse is a pretty high bar to reach in the failure Olympics but, indulge me for just a moment. McCain was not really that much less liberal in his spending idea’s than Obama. He had far more experience in working both sides of the isle and would have run his programs through congress without having to fight anyone but the true conservatives in his own party. If this idea is valid, he might have somehow spent even more of our magic dollars that fall from the sky. So what about the next election? Could a Rino be even worse for reigning in spending than Obama who would unite the Republican party in opposition? Someone explain the error of my thinking because this is not a story with a happy ending.

blaise
08-19-2011, 10:10 AM
We wouldn't have had Beyonce, and People magazine covers, and Hope and stuff. I think that made it all worth it.

Predarat
08-19-2011, 10:49 AM
I did not think it would get much worse then with Dubya.

FishingRod
08-19-2011, 10:56 AM
I did not think it would get much worse then with Dubya.

I didn't either but it IMO has. I know people have been thinking it is too late for years but the amount of bills we are creating for my kids is shameful.

Jaric
08-19-2011, 11:32 AM
I did not think it would get much worse then with Dubya.

This. Yet here we are. I imagine we'll be saying the same thing about the next guy elected.

Garcia Bronco
08-19-2011, 11:33 AM
I didn't either but it IMO has. I know people have been thinking it is too late for years but the amount of bills we are creating for my kids is shameful.

More like bills for us now.

ROYC75
08-19-2011, 11:34 AM
The Hope and Change mantra was nothing but talking rhetoric by a true smooth talking liberal with tax and spend methods. His plan, so called plan was outlined to win voters and then shift the minute he takes office.

To be fair and honest,it was a tough situation to be in, for anybody who got elected. But we need solutions, not just more spending that is not helping the country. His plan is always a failure, everything he has submitted has failed, except give the OK pirate hostage ship and to OBL, which he did take a gamble that paid off. But these did not reflect on jobs, JOBS, the major thing he ran on when campaigned on. He has not presented anything I know of that the house or senate has agreed on, except wanting universal HC in his 1st 2 years through a jackass controlled congress.

He has been a trial and error POTUS, never having any executive experience has showed terrible . The POTUS should not be a trial and error for someone with no executive experience. The people of the USA should never elect one that does not have it. The people need to get wise, get themselves educated on the candidates for any potential elected official. Of course their is no way to require this, so we get what we got now, poorly elected officials in all isles of the government.

It's sad that America's standards have dropped so low. Instead of finding solutions, all the POTUS & Congress wants to point fingers and lay the blame on the other side. It's time the POTUS & Congress grew up,became adults and stopped acting like spoiled brats.

ChiefsCountry
08-19-2011, 11:44 AM
I did not think it would get much worse then with Dubya.

The United States was alot better off with Bush than it is with Obama running it.

vailpass
08-19-2011, 11:59 AM
Could it be worse than obama? Sure. It could be second-term obama.

alnorth
08-19-2011, 11:59 AM
I'd ask if it could have possibly been much better with anyone else, and I'm firmly convinced the answer is a solid no.

The United States was alot better off with Bush than it is with Obama running it.

If presidents could have 3 terms and Bush was re-elected, we would not have been any better off.

What happened, is being driven almost entirely by the housing crisis and Europe. There is not a damned thing the president or the congress could have done, after the end of 2008, to make our situation any better. Taxes are extremely low, stimulus spending is very high (and if you try to claim that stimulus spending made it worse, you are nuts, at worst it did not do much), we even cut payroll taxes by 2%.

There's really nothing else anyone in power could have done, after the end of 2008, to significantly improve the economy.

vailpass
08-19-2011, 12:01 PM
I'd ask if it could have possibly been much better with anyone else, and I'm firmly convinced the answer is a solid no.



If presidents could have 3 terms and Bush was re-elected, we would not have been any better off.

What happened, is being driven almost entirely by the housing crisis and Europe. There is not a damned thing the president or the congress could have done, after the end of 2008, to make our situation any better. Taxes are extremely low, stimulus spending is very high (and if you try to claim that stimulus spending made it worse, you are nuts, at worst it did not much), we even cut payroll taxes by 2%.

There's really nothing else anyone in power could have done, after the end of 2008, to significantly improve the economy.

How long will you people continue to hide behind the "a dog ate obama's homework" fallacy?

petegz28
08-19-2011, 12:13 PM
I'd ask if it could have possibly been much better with anyone else, and I'm firmly convinced the answer is a solid no.



If presidents could have 3 terms and Bush was re-elected, we would not have been any better off.

What happened, is being driven almost entirely by the housing crisis and Europe. There is not a damned thing the president or the congress could have done, after the end of 2008, to make our situation any better. Taxes are extremely low, stimulus spending is very high (and if you try to claim that stimulus spending made it worse, you are nuts, at worst it did not do much), we even cut payroll taxes by 2%.

There's really nothing else anyone in power could have done, after the end of 2008, to significantly improve the economy.


Nice way to cover Obama's ass on the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus actuall hurt us in the long run, imo.

Direckshun
08-19-2011, 02:59 PM
Nice way to cover Obama's ass on the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus actuall hurt us in the long run, imo.

It prevented a second Great Depression, so there's that.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-19-2011, 03:00 PM
Nice way to cover Obama's ass on the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus actuall hurt us in the long run, imo.

Ya it's a good thing we had the stimulus...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=248680

patteeu
08-19-2011, 03:17 PM
I have been struggling with a thought for the last year or two that I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my mind around. In short we might have been even worse off with McCain than Obama. I know, worse is a pretty high bar to reach in the failure Olympics but, indulge me for just a moment. McCain was not really that much less liberal in his spending idea’s than Obama. He had far more experience in working both sides of the isle and would have run his programs through congress without having to fight anyone but the true conservatives in his own party. If this idea is valid, he might have somehow spent even more of our magic dollars that fall from the sky. So what about the next election? Could a Rino be even worse for reigning in spending than Obama who would unite the Republican party in opposition? Someone explain the error of my thinking because this is not a story with a happy ending.

Do you understand just how much spending Obama has done? (That's rhetorical, I'm sure you do). Based on campaign promises, he was ready to roll out almost $1 trillion in new spending even before the financial crisis hit in the fall of 2008. I know that $1 trillion doesn't sound like that much now that we've had 2+ years of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, but back then it was an outrageous amount, especially since democrats, after all the spending-related problems they've caused in this country, were audaciously criticizing the Bush administration for spending too much.

A big part of McCain's bad rap among conservatives comes from non-spending issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. Another issue that conservatives have with him would be his support for Cap & Trade, which is another non-spending issue. I won't say that McCain hasn't had some problems in the spending area, but nothing really jumps out at me. The closest thing I can think of is that he would have probably favored a slower pace of drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cannibal
08-19-2011, 03:29 PM
I have been struggling with a thought for the last year or two that I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my mind around. In short we might have been even worse off with McCain than Obama. I know, worse is a pretty high bar to reach in the failure Olympics but, indulge me for just a moment. McCain was not really that much less liberal in his spending idea’s than Obama. He had far more experience in working both sides of the isle and would have run his programs through congress without having to fight anyone but the true conservatives in his own party. If this idea is valid, he might have somehow spent even more of our magic dollars that fall from the sky. So what about the next election? Could a Rino be even worse for reigning in spending than Obama who would unite the Republican party in opposition? Someone explain the error of my thinking because this is not a story with a happy ending.

Partisan bullshit aside, I imagine we'd be pretty much right where are right now. If Romney wins against Obama, things will continue just as they are now. The Corporations absolutely own the government.

KCTitus
08-19-2011, 03:38 PM
Partisan bullshit aside, I imagine we'd be pretty much right where are right now. If Romney wins against Obama, things will continue just as they are now. The Corporations absolutely own the government.

I cannot disagree with that...the only true difference is I dont think McCain would have created government healthcare, but other than that it's a push. I'd say the government absolutely owns corporations now given all the 'reforms' and various bailouts.

Stewie
08-19-2011, 04:10 PM
It prevented a second Great Depression, so there's that.

If calculations were done today like in the 30's we'd be in a Great Depression... a much worse depression. In the 60's LBJ made sure that the "numbers" adjusted to the liking of politicians. Bill Clinton took it another step further in '94. It's fucking insane. The way things are calculated today we could NEVER be in a depression.

Brock
08-19-2011, 04:13 PM
It prevented a second Great Depression, so there's that.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-19-2011, 04:18 PM
It prevented a second Great Depression, so there's that.

America's Greatest Depression may still be coming. BTW, having a short-lived Depression of one to two years, would have been better than dragging out some pain or than what's coming.

Ugly Duck
08-19-2011, 04:41 PM
The United States was alot better off with Bush than it is with Obama running it.

Oh yeah sure - millions lost their jobs & were still losing 750,000 jobs per month, all major banks & insurance companies & auto industry on the verge of bankruptcy - that would be better than this!



Yes, the stimulus actuall hurt us

I blame this kinda stuff on religion. Take a kid & subject him to propaganda til his reasoning faculties are so twisted that he can believe that snakes can talk & he can telepathically communicate with invisible dead people. Small wonder he can grow up to believe that the earth is cooling, the glaciers are advancing, reducing revenue increases revenue, and stimulus hurts the economy. Repent!

HonestChieffan
08-20-2011, 07:30 PM
Simple answer in it would have been way way worse if the repubs had not taken back the house. that said he will go down as the worst to date

Elwaysux
08-21-2011, 03:04 AM
As much as the international community hated Bush for being percieved as a war-monger they hate Barry's results and more importantly don't trust him because he leads from behind. Hard to imagine McCain would have been this bad.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2011, 01:08 PM
I have been struggling with a thought for the last year or two that I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my mind around. In short we might have been even worse off with McCain than Obama. I know, worse is a pretty high bar to reach in the failure Olympics but, indulge me for just a moment. McCain was not really that much less liberal in his spending idea’s than Obama. He had far more experience in working both sides of the isle and would have run his programs through congress without having to fight anyone but the true conservatives in his own party. If this idea is valid, he might have somehow spent even more of our magic dollars that fall from the sky. So what about the next election? Could a Rino be even worse for reigning in spending than Obama who would unite the Republican party in opposition? Someone explain the error of my thinking because this is not a story with a happy ending.

Of course It would of been better under McCain. McCain isn't hostile toward the capitalistic model. McCain for all his faults would most likely of let GM go into bankruptcy. He would of done TARP (but that shits paid back now) but he would of let the market heal itself by and large. The FED would still have lowered rates to increase liquidity.

Clinton would have done a much better job leading as well. I can't stand her politics but that old crow is tough and I believe loves America as an institution. She's a lot wiser and more experienced than Obama.

It doesn't matter now. The people have gotten what they wanted and what they deserve. Everyone seems to be looking around wondering why it sucks. I'll tell you why. It's the (PRIVATE) economy stupid? Bill Clinton knew this, W. understood it eventhough his regulators let Wall Street Fook up the economy. If we want to create blue collar jobs in America where people build things instead of having them outsourced we need to lower the corporate TAX RATE TO MAKE THE USA COMPETITIVE, close the bullshit loopholes for Mega Multi National Corps and make America the center of the manufacturing free world again for VALUE added jobs. The Chinese can make all the bullshit crap for us while we make planes, computers, software, Cars, White Goods, HVAC, Power Plants, Refining of Oil and Gas right here in the USA. We will create new jobs in the USA and then when the job makers start hiring we can sunset the Bush tax cuts so everyone will be paying again. Then modify the code so that the middle class and the upper middle don't get much of a hit and then raise the taxes on people making somewhere around $750k a year and up (Not because they are the hated asshole rich) but because they are business owners and if we help them to get their businesses going then paying a bit more personally will not screw up the recovery.

Right now our Govt. is focused on growing itself, sending out money to the unemployed who have a job that is under the radar (all cash) and blowing up opportunity by regulating the hell out of the Country. Crazy.

KC Dan
08-21-2011, 02:28 PM
It prevented a second Great Depression, so there's that.Prove it! You can't so just stop with the "no one can prove what didn't happen, so I'll state it as fact" CRAP.

RNR
08-21-2011, 03:38 PM
Prove it! You can't so just stop with the "no one can prove what didn't happen, so I'll state it as fact" CRAP.

You life will improve if you add his name to the list of leftwingers that you do not take serious~

banyon
08-21-2011, 08:15 PM
Of course It would of been better under McCain. McCain isn't hostile toward the capitalistic model. McCain for all his faults would most likely of let GM go into bankruptcy. He would of done TARP (but that shits paid back now) but he would of let the market heal itself by and large. The FED would still have lowered rates to increase liquidity. .

Your history is out of sync. Those choices wouldn't have been McCain's to make. They were made by Bush before Obama was even elected. The auto bailout was September 2008. Tarp was October 2008.

orange
08-22-2011, 01:11 AM
If calculations were done today like in the 30's we'd be in a Great Depression... a much worse depression. In the 60's LBJ made sure that the "numbers" adjusted to the liking of politicians. Bill Clinton took it another step further in '94. It's ****ing insane. The way things are calculated today we could NEVER be in a depression.

Here's a simple, non-government calculation:

While the 18-month U.S. recession that ended in June 2009 after a 5.1 percent contraction in gross domestic product was nowhere near the four-year, 27 percent decline between August 1929 and March 1933, banks and the economy remain stressed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Yes, your grandparents really did have it much tougher than you.