| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
 Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: Sorry [Rtaints], Obama Isn't As Divisive As Bush |
 |
|
| Quote: | Sorry, Marco Rubio: Obama Isn't As Divisive As Bush, Lincoln
Republicans often accuse President Obama of being divisive, whether he's talking about tax rates for the wealthy or the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. One adviser to Mitt Romney, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie, calls Obama "one of the most divisive presidents in American history." Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida upped the ante last weekend when he said that "we have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history" since Obama took office.
Please. Tell that to Abraham Lincoln or, if we're limiting ourselves to modern history, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush.
Especially tell it to Bush, who holds six of the top 10 spots on Gallup's "most polarizing presidents" list. It's calculated by the annual difference between a president's approval in his own party and the opposition party. Ranked by the size of the gap, Bush is Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Obama holds slots 4 and 6, while Clinton and Ronald Reagan are ranked 7th and 9th, respectively.
Rubio's statement in particular, with its reference to "modern" American history, carries echoes of the proverbial defendant who killed his parents and begs the court for mercy because he's an orphan. Why is Obama so divisive? Could it have anything to do with the no-compromise, no-surrender approach of today's Republican Party? |
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/sorry-marco-rubio-obama-isnt-as-divisive-as-bush-lincoln-or-clinton/257483/
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Akkara
Administrator
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 4311
Location: &akkara
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pardon me for a moment. My post is offtopic. But after seeing a steady drullroll of US-political threads and posts coming from you, I can't help but wonder:
Why do you care?
(By-the-way and in case it's not already clear: I'm posting this as a "just me" question, not in any way taking on the "admin" role here. This question is in no way meant to censor, suggest, or change anything. I'm merely "just curious".)
In some other thread I think you mentioned you are trying to "maintain balance" of political viewpoints by expressing one you felt is underrepresented here.
But still the question stands: why? Why do you care so much? You're in New Zealand, going by what you've listed as your location. That's about as distant as one can get from the USA still remain on the planet. Do you really scout out all these articles, so many each day? I find half this stuff mind-numbingly boring and the other half eye-roll inducing. I'm finding it hard to imagine how someone - a non-resident - with (presumably) no connection can nevertheless find so much to say on these political topics.
So, again, why? Is something irking you that bad? Simply interested? Something else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Akkara wrote: |
Pardon me for a moment. My post is offtopic. But after seeing a steady drullroll of US-political threads and posts coming from you, I can't help but wonder:
Why do you care?
(By-the-way and in case it's not already clear: I'm posting this as a "just me" question, not in any way taking on the "admin" role here. This question is in no way meant to censor, suggest, or change anything. I'm merely "just curious".)
In some other thread I think you mentioned you are trying to "maintain balance" of political viewpoints by expressing one you felt is underrepresented here.
But still the question stands: why? Why do you care so much? You're in New Zealand, going by what you've listed as your location. That's about as distant as one can get from the USA still remain on the planet. Do you really scout out all these articles, so many each day? I find half this stuff mind-numbingly boring and the other half eye-roll inducing. I'm finding it hard to imagine how someone - a non-resident - with (presumably) no connection can nevertheless find so much to say on these political topics.
So, again, why? Is something irking you that bad? Simply interested? Something else? |
you don't HAVE to read them, you know.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Akkara
Administrator
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 4311
Location: &akkara
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | you don't HAVE to read them, you know. |
I know. I hardly ever read any of them other than to clean up the occasional spam. But when I sign on, and scan OTW, and 90% of the latest topics are political, and a good 20% of them are headed up by you, I begin to wonder. And with passing time the wonder the curiosity grows. And grows, until it reaches the point of I'm gonna post and ask.
The question still stands, if you wish to answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petrjanda
Veteran
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thats because Sugar, Energyman, Muso and BoneKracker like to do each other in the arse, often.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1196
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I find odd is that he utilizes opinion pieces for his backing arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Where were you when they said the same thing about the Bamer????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petrjanda
Veteran
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | Where were you when they said the same thing about the Bamer????? |
That doesn't change the fact that Sugar is a New Zealander. It's kind of like if I (putting my Australian hat on) was constantly posting threads/opinions on Angela Merkel or the EU.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Obama Isn't As Divisive As Bush |
Kind of depends on who you ask. Although, most on the Left seem to be refusing to acknowledge Obama's failures. Many Republicans did acknowledge some Bush failures.
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | Where were you when they said the same thing about the Bamer????? |
What's a Bamer? He's only asking out of curiosity, not telling him to stop.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| petrjanda wrote: | | ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | Where were you when they said the same thing about the Bamer????? |
That doesn't change the fact that Sugar is a New Zealander. It's kind of like if I (putting my Australian hat on) was constantly posting threads/opinions on Angela Merkel or the EU. |
But you would only do that if you were trolling.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| petrjanda wrote: | | ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | Where were you when they said the same thing about the Bamer????? |
That doesn't change the fact that Sugar is a New Zealander. It's kind of like if I (putting my Australian hat on) was constantly posting threads/opinions on Angela Merkel or the EU. |
You know, that's funny coming from you. An Australian with Czech roots and the second greatest Ron Paul fan boy in the world right after jdmulloy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aCOSwt
Advocate
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2035
Location: Between the keyboard and the chair
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Akkara wrote: | | Why do you care? |
| sugar wrote: | | you don't HAVE to read them, you know. |
| Akkara wrote: | | The question still stands, if you wish to answer. |
I think sugar did.
"you don't HAVE TO read" is explicit enough to understand the rest of the phrase which is implicit : "you don't HAVE TO read... what I HAVE TO post"
So we are here in a typical sort of a moral duty.
This being said, going further into the precise knowledge of the basis of sugar's moral, knowing if it is some NZ-god, the color of the sun or the heat of the stars... who cares ? It is a moral duty period.
At the extreme limit, Akkara is not more explicit about his/her own motives. He/She is curious. Period ! What are the basis of his/her curiosity... is simply irrelevant.
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | What I find odd is that he utilizes opinion pieces for his backing arguments. |
Very pertinent and clever observation indeed !
What do people utilize for backing their morale ? Opinions !
QED !
EDIT : I had forgotten to mention the strong value judgment sugar apparently feels compelled to display and conjugate in his titles...
_________________
In theory there are no differences between theory and practice. In practice, there are.
Don't try to understand my posts. Immanuel Kant never did, he thinks that only music and laughter do not have to mean anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petrjanda
Veteran
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | ]You know, that's funny coming from you. An Australian with Czech roots and the second greatest Ron Paul fan boy in the world right after jdmulloy. |
I may be a fan of Ron Paul or his principles and ideas but do I go about posting at least 3 US-politics related threads a day? No. That's the difference.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Akkara wrote: |
Pardon me for a moment. My post is offtopic. But after seeing a steady drullroll of US-political threads and posts coming from you, I can't help but wonder:
Why do you care? |
Perhaps he realizes that America, rather than being a country that just minds it's own business, is one that likes to mind the business of as many other countries as it possibly can. America has the biggest economy, the biggest military, has the world standard currency, and yet has a political system undeserving of those things. Non-Americans need to care.
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | What I find odd is that he utilizes opinion pieces for his backing arguments. |
Well in this case, the basis of the argument is more factual:
| Quote: | | Especially tell it to Bush, who holds six of the top 10 spots on Gallup's "most polarizing presidents" list. It's calculated by the annual difference between a president's approval in his own party and the opposition party. Ranked by the size of the gap, Bush is Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Obama holds slots 4 and 6, while Clinton and Ronald Reagan are ranked 7th and 9th, respectively. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Akkara wrote: |
Pardon me for a moment. My post is offtopic. But after seeing a steady drullroll of US-political threads and posts coming from you, I can't help but wonder:
Why do you care? |
Perhaps he realizes that America, rather than being a country that just minds it's own business, is one that likes to mind the business of as many other countries as it possibly can. America has the biggest economy, the biggest military, has the world standard currency, and yet has a political system undeserving of those things. |
I agree with your statement, but it has little or nothing to do with sugar's thoughts or actions.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | Akkara wrote: |
Pardon me for a moment. My post is offtopic. But after seeing a steady drullroll of US-political threads and posts coming from you, I can't help but wonder:
Why do you care? |
Perhaps he realizes that America, rather than being a country that just minds it's own business, is one that likes to mind the business of as many other countries as it possibly can. America has the biggest economy, the biggest military, has the world standard currency, and yet has a political system undeserving of those things. |
I agree with your statement, but it has little or nothing to do with sugar's thoughts or actions. |
Well why do people want to know so badly? There's more than one non-American on here who posts about American politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Well why do people want to know so badly? There's more than one non-American on here who posts about American politics. |
Good question. I suspect that it's because he's such an obvious troll, or maybe they are concerned about his emotional well-being.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | Well why do people want to know so badly? There's more than one non-American on here who posts about American politics. |
Good question. I suspect that it's because he's such an obvious troll, or maybe they are concerned about his emotional well-being. |
Or perhaps he just posts things certain people on here don't want to read.
For every one post like this one: "Obama not as divisive as Bush", there's several "Obama sucks, blah blah" post. How you can call him a troll, I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The article is flawed anyway. It equates "divisive" (which has a definition) with "polarizing" (in the sense of poll results).
While the voting base was indeed polarized during Bush's time in office, we can't simply conclude he caused that because he happened to be President at the time. The Democrats and the media played a big role, as did the neocon powers-that-be.
Unlike Obama, Bush didn't actually have much bad to say about his political foes. Obama doesn't let a week go by without either blaming Republicans for something he doesn't want the blame for or attacking them outright, in campaign style. This is one of the reasons many say Obama has never stopped campaigning.
Bush may be been a polarizing figure, particularly as the figurehead of the neocons. But Obama himself is divisive. He campaigned on "post-partisanship" and "reaching across the aisle". Then, the only thing he reached across the aisle for was to get a good grip on the Republican hips before trying to butt-fuck them. It wasn't two weeks into his term before he was at war with them.
Then, after the "shellacking" in 2010, he ended the year by promising 2011 would be a new time of cooperation, and people believed him. By March he was refusing to compromise one iota on government spending and was calling Republicans terrorists, holding America hostage.
Obama hasn't stopped talking shit about Republicans since the day he hit the campaign trail in 2007. It used to be that such behavior was seen as undignified and below a sitting President. Not anymore, I guess.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Unlike Obama, Bush didn't actually have much bad to say about his political foes. Obama doesn't let a week go by without either blaming Republicans for something he doesn't want the blame for or attacking them outright, in campaign style. This is one of the reasons many say Obama has never stopped campaigning. |
Perhaps it's because at the time he had nothing to back any such attacks on Democrats. Obama has plenty to back his anti-Republican speech. (Wars, recession, tax cuts for the rich etc..)
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Bush may be been a polarizing figure, particularly as the figurehead of the neocons. But Obama himself is divisive. He campaigned on "post-partisanship" and "reaching across the aisle". Then, the only thing he reached across the aisle for was to get a good grip on the Republican hips before trying to butt-fuck them. It wasn't two weeks into his term before he was at war with them. |
Perhaps because the Republicans, before they left the White house, said:"Here's a recession for you, and here's a huge national debt that will take years to bring under control. See ya!"
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Then, after the "shellacking" in 2010, he ended the year by promising 2011 would be a new time of cooperation, and people believed him. By March he was refusing to compromise one iota on government spending and was calling Republicans terrorists, holding America hostage. |
And the Republicans pushed back with an equal and opposite non-compromising force, thus cancelling out this argument.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Obama hasn't stopped talking shit about Republicans since the day he hit the campaign trail in 2007. It used to be that such behavior was seen as undignified and below a sitting President. Not anymore, I guess. |
And Republicans haven't stopped talking shit about Obama since 2007. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Unlike Obama, Bush didn't actually have much bad to say about his political foes. Obama doesn't let a week go by without either blaming Republicans for something he doesn't want the blame for or attacking them outright, in campaign style. This is one of the reasons many say Obama has never stopped campaigning. |
Perhaps it's because at the time he had nothing to back any such attacks on Democrats. Obama has plenty to back his anti-Republican speech. (Wars, recession, tax cuts for the rich etc..) |
If you honestly see things in a light this one-sided, you are beyond hope.
Obama has expanded the wars. Other than stupidly announcing a withdrawal timeline for Iraq, and then following through on Bush's "even-driven" withdrawal anyway, all he has done is expand wars everywhere. He doubled the size of the war in Afghanistan and turned it into a Vietnam-like quagmire, which he is losing. He bombed the shit out of Libya, which put it in the hands of al Qaeda-linked fundamentalists. He's got us fighting secret wars nobody has agreed to in places like Yemen and Somalia. He has blurted out stupid things publicly which amount to an open challenge to the Chinese to a future war in the Pacific. The military is bigger now than when he took office, and more forwardly deployed (he didn't "bring our troops home", he moved them around).
The recession was due to ill-advised and misbegotten social policies of Democrats, which gave birth to the abominations known as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN Housing Corporation, and a tidal wave of "toxic assets". This was compounded by outright refusal of the Democrat-controlled Congress (most notably, Housing Oversight Chairman Barney Frank) to exercise oversight, despite repeated requests by the Bush Administration that they do so. Yes, this was exacerbated by deregulation of financial markets, but this was actually begun under Clinton and continued under the watchful eyes of a Democrat Congress. So there is no way you can blame the recession solely upon Republicans. It was more the fault of Democrats, if a specific party must be named.
Moreover, we'd have made better progress recovering from it had we done absolutely nothing. Obama, by his mere presence, has created great regime uncertainty, with socialist and anti-business policies and legislative agenda, with the stimulus that he pissed away on pet social projects and padding the budgets of government offices, and most of all, with his clusterfucking, inept leadership, waffling, indecision, demonstrated lack of direction, and willingness to bend whichever direction the polls indicate is politically expedient, has been the main reason we aren't yet more fully recovered. If we'd stuck a mannequin in the White House we'd be better off now.
As to "tax cuts for the rich", it's nothing but a red herring. The Democrats had two full years of total power during which time they could have put an end to them. They didn't. They still don't want to, for valid economic reasons (as was reported yesterday by the OMB, it will be necessary to continue them in order to avoid slipping back into recession next year). They just say they do, because it makes for good populist demagoguery. Get the masses angry at somebody else, and they won't be angry at you. 
There are two sides to this story, and it's pretty telling that you find yourself only able to see one.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Bush may be been a polarizing figure, particularly as the figurehead of the neocons. But Obama himself is divisive. He campaigned on "post-partisanship" and "reaching across the aisle". Then, the only thing he reached across the aisle for was to get a good grip on the Republican hips before trying to butt-fuck them. It wasn't two weeks into his term before he was at war with them. |
Perhaps because the Republicans, before they left the White house, said:"Here's a recession for you, and here's a huge national debt that will take years to bring under control. See ya!" |
Obama has done nothing to control the recession and especially the national debt under control. The one opportunity, the stimulus, he squandered by mis-management. The net effect of the rest of his activity has been to make things worse.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Then, after the "shellacking" in 2010, he ended the year by promising 2011 would be a new time of cooperation, and people believed him. By March he was refusing to compromise one iota on government spending and was calling Republicans terrorists, holding America hostage. |
And the Republicans pushed back with an equal and opposite non-compromising force, thus cancelling out this argument. |
No, it doesn't "cancel out the argument", it makes Obama a liar when he tries to blame it all on Republicans, calling them "terrorists" and saying they are "holding the country hostage", when he knows the 2010 election mandated spending cuts and that the impasse is primarily due to his unwillingness to make them. He has even thrown his own party members under the bus, first by making them support his failed Obamacare agenda (which got them thrown out of office) and then by turning around and blaming "Congress" for everything for the past two years (even though he's the one who fucked up the negotiations).
| pitcrawler wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Obama hasn't stopped talking shit about Republicans since the day he hit the campaign trail in 2007. It used to be that such behavior was seen as undignified and below a sitting President. Not anymore, I guess. |
And Republicans haven't stopped talking shit about Obama since 2007. |
"Republicans" aren't a sitting President. Democrats wailed, moaned, and went into labor in the streets about Bush for six years, but you didn't hear Bush lowering himself to their level. Obama is a populist who has no qualms spewing political slurs and propaganda out of his own mouth. It's symptomatic of the degree to which the people at top levels in the White House have been marinating too much in their own Kool Aid, which is why they are out of touch with what Americans are really thinking.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama had one task which, like him or not, all Americans (and the whole world, really) were counting on him for: to marshal our economic recovery. Instead of doing that he has actually hindered it.
| Quote: | How the Recovery Went Wrong
Of the 11 recoveries in the last 60 years, this one is at or near the bottom in job growth and every other economic indicator.
President Obama, in speech after speech, proudly makes the following point: Although we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, we have generated net new jobs every month, and while we need to do more, we are going in the right direction.
Of course, recoveries always go in the right direction—that is, things get better over time. But merely going in the right direction is an incredibly low performance standard. Moreover, since deep recessions are generally followed by more robust recoveries, this should have been one of the strongest recoveries ever.
So what went wrong? All the available Keynesian levers for achieving economic growth have been pulled, yet the recovery is one of the weakest since World War II. The problem lies with the way the "stimulus" was carried out, the uncertainty of looming higher taxes, and the antibusiness rhetoric and regulatory strong-arming of this administration.
First, exactly how weak has this recovery been? ... more |
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry sugar, you're still not american.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | Obama had one task which, like him or not, all Americans (and the whole world, really) were counting on him for: to marshal our economic recovery. Instead of doing that he has actually hindered it.
| Quote: | How the Recovery Went Wrong
Of the 11 recoveries in the last 60 years, this one is at or near the bottom in job growth and every other economic indicator. |
|
Past recoveries didn't have to contest with global oil production stagnation. Everywhere is hurting badly.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
