Started By
Message
re: Obama Economy 4th Worst of Any US President
Posted on 4/29/16 at 9:00 am to cas4t
Posted on 4/29/16 at 9:00 am to cas4t
quote:
"In brief, out of the 168 cloture motions ever filed (or reconsidered) on nominations, 82 (49 percent) were cloture motions on nominations made since 2009."
republicans didn't run anything in 2009. just saying.
0
Posted on 4/29/16 at 9:14 am to BHMKyle
Republicans met the night of his inauguration and formed a strategy to oppose his entire agenda, so it started before he even took office and started "insulting" Republicans. And the opposition really ramped up after the 2010 midterms when Republicans took control of the House.
There will always be opposition from the Congressional party that is opposite the sitting President. The opposition Obama has faced has been unprecedented in my lifetime though, and Republican lawmakers don't really try to hide it.
Obama handled it pretty poorly, and has been a pretty average, at best, President. But to pretend he's faced the same opposition prior Presidents have faced is disingenuous. W Bush is the closest, but even he had a pretty cooperative Congress until his last few years.
There will always be opposition from the Congressional party that is opposite the sitting President. The opposition Obama has faced has been unprecedented in my lifetime though, and Republican lawmakers don't really try to hide it.
Obama handled it pretty poorly, and has been a pretty average, at best, President. But to pretend he's faced the same opposition prior Presidents have faced is disingenuous. W Bush is the closest, but even he had a pretty cooperative Congress until his last few years.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 9:51 am to Weagle25
quote:
No it's not.
This statement is one of the biggest problems we have in America today
Unfortunately, because of the Federal Reserve, it's an unavoidable fact.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 9:58 am to The Spleen
quote:
Republicans met the night of his inauguration and formed a strategy to oppose his entire agenda, so it started before he even took office and started "insulting" Republicans. And the opposition really ramped up after the 2010 midterms when Republicans took control of the House.
There will always be opposition from the Congressional party that is opposite the sitting President. The opposition Obama has faced has been unprecedented in my lifetime though, and Republican lawmakers don't really try to hide it.
Obama handled it pretty poorly, and has been a pretty average, at best, President. But to pretend he's faced the same opposition prior Presidents have faced is disingenuous.
i was going to strongly disagree with you on some points....
quote:
W Bush is the closest, but even he had a pretty cooperative Congress until his last few years.
but then you went and redeemed yourself. no bush lover, but the hate he got from the other side of the aisle his last two years (somewhat deserved mind you) was intense.
i will say that the one difference between now and 8 years ago is that Bush didn't openly criticize and mock his opposition in congress. Obama does. I'm not an Obama lover or hater one way or another, but he's pretty quick to point a finger the second something doesn't go right.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 10:19 am to BHMKyle
I skipped your rambling rhetoric that was unrelated to the subject at hand. But where did I imply Obama was the first president to be victim of mass filibustering? I wasn't aware we were discussing Bush in this thread, as I know how to read the subject line before entering. (eta and this is your own thread 
sorry for attempting to stay on topic)
Filibustering has been going on for years, yes. This is common knowledge. I find unconstitutional then and do now. I believe it has ruined the senate.
Folks like you who paint people as liberal or conservative are part of the problem. Get a grip. You've successfully allowed politicians to divide this country in half and the sooner you start thinking on your own, the better off you and the rest of us will be. I have not nor ever will blanket vote for one party. I've no lasting relationship with either party and would happily vote for a republican as president as I did in 2008. Unfortunately my values don't align with any that are left on the ticket for this upcoming election.
Just try to realize that the biggest problem this country faces right now, politically, is that both sides of the table are gridlocked. They hate each other. Each finds the other treasonous and we have gerrymandering and political sabotage going on both sides of the table. It's pathetic and it has resulted in the most ineffective congress in the history of the United States. Stop furthering the problem with your "Lib, conservative, right, left, red, blue" bullshite. It's unbecoming and childish. Think for yourself for a change, Kyle. You're advocating republicans revenge for what happened under the Bush administration. What is this, some sort of game to you? We are talking about the most important roles in all of the free world and your stance is "well he did it first, so my actions are justified". That is a child's line of thinking!
sorry for attempting to stay on topic) Filibustering has been going on for years, yes. This is common knowledge. I find unconstitutional then and do now. I believe it has ruined the senate.
Folks like you who paint people as liberal or conservative are part of the problem. Get a grip. You've successfully allowed politicians to divide this country in half and the sooner you start thinking on your own, the better off you and the rest of us will be. I have not nor ever will blanket vote for one party. I've no lasting relationship with either party and would happily vote for a republican as president as I did in 2008. Unfortunately my values don't align with any that are left on the ticket for this upcoming election.
Just try to realize that the biggest problem this country faces right now, politically, is that both sides of the table are gridlocked. They hate each other. Each finds the other treasonous and we have gerrymandering and political sabotage going on both sides of the table. It's pathetic and it has resulted in the most ineffective congress in the history of the United States. Stop furthering the problem with your "Lib, conservative, right, left, red, blue" bullshite. It's unbecoming and childish. Think for yourself for a change, Kyle. You're advocating republicans revenge for what happened under the Bush administration. What is this, some sort of game to you? We are talking about the most important roles in all of the free world and your stance is "well he did it first, so my actions are justified". That is a child's line of thinking!
This post was edited on 4/29/16 at 10:49 am
Posted on 4/29/16 at 10:24 am to AUbagman
quote:
But I agree, the two party pitting is dumb and detrimental. It does keep the masses distracted though
Like the OP
Posted on 4/29/16 at 10:48 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
What a dumb comment.
Please, educate me.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 10:51 am to WheelRoute
quote:
Please, educate me.
When is the last time anyone borrowed their way out of debt?
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:06 am to JustGetItRight
Businesses do it all the time.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:24 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
When is the last time anyone borrowed their way out of debt?
The U.S. doesn't need to be out of debt. And the U.S. is not a business or a household. It's silly to think of it as such.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:37 am to WheelRoute
quote:
The U.S. doesn't need to be out of debt. And the U.S. is not a business or a household. It's silly to think of it as such.
Absolutely correct. But it doesn't at the same time need to artificially lower interest rates to keep debt super cheap. All that does is devalue currency and create bubbles.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:45 am to WheelRoute
quote:
The U.S. doesn't need to be out of debt. And the U.S. is not a business or a household. It's silly to think of it as such.
More debt equals devalued currency. Take a class or something.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:50 am to WheelRoute
quote:
The U.S. doesn't need to be out of debt.
i understand the sentiment, but are you saying it's better to be in debt than not?
Posted on 4/29/16 at 11:58 am to 3nOut
quote:
Absolutely correct. But it doesn't at the same time need to artificially lower interest rates to keep debt super cheap. All that does is devalue currency and create bubbles.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Please elaborate.
quote:
More debt equals devalued currency. Take a class or something.
quote:
i understand the sentiment, but are you saying it's better to be in debt than not?
Two points, 1) we owe trillions to ourselves. These liabilities represent pledges in future spending. This is a different type of debt and is wholly acceptable, IMO. 2) That depends on the price of the debt and what we might use it for. Right now it can be obtained very cheaply and we have crumbling infrastructure.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 12:55 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Unfortunately, because of the Federal Reserve, it's an unavoidable fact.
The role of government is not a fact
Posted on 4/29/16 at 1:02 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
Two points, 1) we owe trillions to ourselves. These liabilities represent pledges in future spending. This is a different type of debt and is wholly acceptable, IMO. 2) That depends on the price of the debt and what we might use it for. Right now it can be obtained very cheaply and we have crumbling infrastructure
No i understand that and agree. I guess what I meant was as necessary as debt is, are you saying it is better to be in debt than not if its an option?
Posted on 4/29/16 at 1:53 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Republicans met the night of his inauguration and formed a strategy to oppose his entire agenda, so it started before he even took office and started "insulting" Republicans.
Figuring the Democrats owned the House and the Senate at that time, I can't imagine what these Republicans figured they could actually do to stop that agenda. If this meeting actually took place, it was probably a scheduled meeting that would have taken place no matter who had won the presidency, even McCain. Party leaders have meetings all the time.
Secondly, a total of 9 Republican Senators voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court... more than double the number of Democrats (4) who crossed party lines to confirm Bush nominee Samuel Alito a few years prior. So there was not immediate widespread opposition by the entire Republican party to obstruct the Obama agenda as you claim.
quote:
The opposition Obama has faced has been unprecedented in my lifetime though
You have blinders on. This is the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. The vitriol spewed at Bush by Democrats was off the charts. While Republicans may not go along and rubber stamp every one of Obama's policies, Obama has never been subjected to personal attacks of being called a murderer, a racist, and other things that were constantly hurled at Bush by members of Congress.
Bush also assumed office and immediately reached across the aisle himself to try to work with Democrats. He let Ted Kennedy write the Education Bill for crying out loud! That would have been the same as Obama assuming office and allowing a Republican Senator write up his health care law.... no freaking way would he have ever done that! Instead Obama said within the first several days of office that Republicans needed to get behind him. The Democrats freaking locked the doors and wouldn't let Republicans in to participate in writing the Health Care Law, and then they cry "Politics!" when the GOP doesn't line up to support it.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 2:13 pm to 3nOut
quote:
No i understand that and agree. I guess what I meant was as necessary as debt is, are you saying it is better to be in debt than not if its an option?
For the U.S.? Most definitely better to be in debt. People are willing to lend us enormous amounts of money at absurdly low rates because the U.S. is the safest bank in the world. Safe investment allays fears a/b future prospects and allows people, businesses, and countries to spend more freely in the present. Consider also that we regulate banks in such a way that requires them to hold safe investments. They need the U.S. to issue debt. When banks are forced to invest in volatile assets it creates the possibility of financial instability.
Right now market forces are shouting loud and clear to the U.S.: issue more debt.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 2:31 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
Most definitely better to be in debt. People are willing to lend us enormous amounts of money at absurdly low rates because the U.S. is the safest bank in the world.
You are correct in theory... the problem is that the amount of debt we are adding and accumulating is not sustainable. It may not be a problem now, but when it does become a problem, that problem will be too big to solve without massive repercussions.
US Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
1980- 30.9%
1985- 40.1%
1990- 51.2%
1995- 64.2%
2000- 58.2%
2005- 60.5%
2010- 84.5%
2015- 103.0%
That debt to GDP ratio is alarmingly high.... highest in US history. And the problem is that there are no signs of it slowing down anytime soon.
There is coming a day when it reaches the point of being a MAJOR problem. It will be a situation similar to what was experienced in Greece recently. And when that happens, it will lead to some very tough times for this country.
Posted on 4/29/16 at 4:11 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
You are correct in theory... the problem is that the amount of debt we are adding and accumulating is not sustainable. It may not be a problem now, but when it does become a problem, that problem will be too big to solve without massive repercussions.
US Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
1980- 30.9%
1985- 40.1%
1990- 51.2%
1995- 64.2%
2000- 58.2%
2005- 60.5%
2010- 84.5%
2015- 103.0%
That debt to GDP ratio is alarmingly high.... highest in US history. And the problem is that there are no signs of it slowing down anytime soon.
There is coming a day when it reaches the point of being a MAJOR problem. It will be a situation similar to what was experienced in Greece recently. And when that happens, it will lead to some very tough times for this country.
You're just fear mongering.
For one, the Reinhart/Rogoff model that held that a debt to GDP ratio of 90%+ is cause for alarm was discredited back in 2013 or so. They made enormous errors in their research.
Second, Greece isn't comparable to us at all. Greece had enormous cultural problems with the collection of taxes, and Greece doesn't print its own money. It's also sort of humorous to reference Greece b/c you can draw a clear line from OUR financial crisis of 08 to Greece's need for bailouts. Greece was under-reporting its deficit for decades. Are you claiming the U.S. is doing this?
I find it odd, too, that you appear to have so much faith in markets except when they're explicitly telling you something that is it odds w/ your political beliefs. Republicans ginned up debt fears b/c it's an easy way to hamstring a Democratic president. All of a sudden in 09 it became absolutely imperative that we tighten spending. The second a Republican takes power, fears a/b debt and calls for its reduction will vanish. This, I promise.
I'm not arguing that there isn't an unsustainable level of debt. I'm just saying we clearly haven't reached it, and likely won't for quite some time.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News