The closer the innauguration the more disappointed

[Guest]

I become. Why? I have been in a wait and see mode. Hold my opinion until his first State of the Union. Each day that goes by gives reason to not wait one year.
Since the election he and his team have been (as predicted) in the now manage expectation mode....with a message every single day that either paints things blacker (no pun intended) than they are....the economy is worse than feared....any fixes will take longer than expected....we might not be able to get out of Iraq as soon as promised...and on and on drones the negative catharsis.
Then yesterday he finally said the magic words "....we are just not going to be able to deliver on many of the promises made during my campaign...".
Maybe he is just setting up a sandbag stance....paint it worse than it is then any improvement that would have shown if no body was there can be claimed.
But I don't think it is that at all.
I reduce it to two causes. One most of the promises were just that...political rhetoric, never intended to be delivered upon in the first place (they all do it....what does the campaign have to do with anything after one wins??).
Secondly and maybe most importantly is, the closer he gets to the Office of the Presidency the more he and his team begin to realize the position of POTUS is not the all power, do anything I say and make it happen position expected. He and his team are learning that certain things just can and cannot be done as expected when the nose is only against the glass looking in.
Of course I did not expect everything to be fixed in one year. I do however expect to see progress enough to know he can deliver at least some of what was passed off to get elected.
My new conclusion after watching all the negative back pedaling is....it will be modus operendi for at least the first year, especially when he observes the stimulus checks and another bail out bunch of $$$$ do no more than the ones passed out under the Bush administration in 2008.
Then the political flip flop, to and fro, dodge and weave, lateral arabesque will be amazing to watch.

For the sake of the USA I do hope I am wrong, but I doubt it....first because he is a politician...second he is a lawyer (trained to use the letter of the law VS what is right)....third he is a neophyte going into a job that has daunted much more experienced President elects in the past.

I am truly disappointed at his strategy of backing off and negative preaching.

BTK

[Guest]

I become. Why? I have been in a wait and see mode. Hold my opinion until his first State of the Union. Each day that goes by gives reason to not wait one year.
Since the election he and his team have been (as predicted) in the now manage expectation mode....with a message every single day that either paints things blacker (no pun intended) than they are....the economy is worse than feared....any fixes will take longer than expected....we might not be able to get out of Iraq as soon as promised...and on and on drones the negative catharsis.
Then yesterday he finally said the magic words "....we are just not going to be able to deliver on many of the promises made during my campaign...".
Maybe he is just setting up a sandbag stance....paint it worse than it is then any improvement that would have shown if no body was there can be claimed.
But I don't think it is that at all.
I reduce it to two causes. One most of the promises were just that...political rhetoric, never intended to be delivered upon in the first place (they all do it....what does the campaign have to do with anything after one wins??).
Secondly and maybe most importantly is, the closer he gets to the Office of the Presidency the more he and his team begin to realize the position of POTUS is not the all power, do anything I say and make it happen position expected. He and his team are learning that certain things just can and cannot be done as expected when the nose is only against the glass looking in.
Of course I did not expect everything to be fixed in one year. I do however expect to see progress enough to know he can deliver at least some of what was passed off to get elected.
My new conclusion after watching all the negative back pedaling is....it will be modus operendi for at least the first year, especially when he observes the stimulus checks and another bail out bunch of $$$$ do no more than the ones passed out under the Bush administration in 2008.
Then the political flip flop, to and fro, dodge and weave, lateral arabesque will be amazing to watch.

For the sake of the USA I do hope I am wrong, but I doubt it....first because he is a politician...second he is a lawyer (trained to use the letter of the law VS what is right)....third he is a neophyte going into a job that has daunted much more experienced President elects in the past.

I am truly disappointed at his strategy of backing off and negative preaching.

BTK

BTK...great post. I, also have tried not to be negative, but as I said before the election and recently...this is the perfect storm !!!

Remember, President elect Obama was trained at and successful at the community organizer. From all I read (and posted on here during the election) that training is pretty much telling folks how bad it is....make them feel desperate. I dont know that is what he is doing but it fits the mold perfectly.

We now will have a socialist leaning President, socialist leaning leaders in the congress and a majority of the congress leaning that way. Barriers are being lifted (fairness doctrine). We are learning that the President elect will play politics as usual (not a CHANGE) as in the ILL senate seat.

BUT he gives great speeches and it always strikes me when people on here mention that as if that was all we needed..a great speech.

There have been moments since the election that I felt like maybe I misjudged but every time I feel that way, it all comes back to the basics and the only way our new President knows. He has promised so much (both financially as well as mood) that many said all along was impossible but he said it so well !!!

[Guest]

I know you two old advisories don't want to hear from me, but can we give this man a break! He's not even in office yet. I really don't know where all this gloom and doom comes from when the media (YES! THE MEDIA! They can't all be wrong!) and the experts in each field (economy, etc.) seem to think he's exactly on track. Can his plans use tweaking? Probably. But let's just all take a deep breath and give him just a little time? Your future is in your hands too. And as President-Elect Obama stated, "for the ones that didn't vote for me, I will be your President too." Let's support our new President. Now that would be a refreshing change. ;)

[Guest]

Maybe George W is leaving things worse than anyone could have imagiined but I know we will never hear that. I, for one thought he could turn it around before he got in office or certainly the first two weeks. Give me a break.

[Guest]

I, for one, think the President Elect is a very bright man. He is pragmatic enough to know the difference between getting elected and governing. Is anyone surpirsed that he is "delaying" some of his campaign promices? He is a politician, after all. I am hoping for the best.

[Guest]

A couple of posters above are critical of our yet-to-be inagurated President because he is describing the difficulties faced by the country instead of how he would make good on his campaign promises. Managing expectations they call it.

Lest we forget, the campaign lasted almost two years. As recently as three months ago President Bush and John McCain said that our econmy is strong. Then 10 days before the election all financial heck broke loose--the worst financial crisis in 75 years became evident. Fannie and Freddie failed followed by several big banks and America's largest insurance compay; the final debate was almost suspended because Congress was meeting to craft a bailout bill; our banking system froze up and remains frozen today; the U.S. auto industry declared that they will go bankrupt and had to be temporarily bailed out (another financial emergency involving them will happen 3 months into the new administration); Israel invaded Gaza trying to take advantage of political support from the outgoing U.S. administration; and just since the election over 2 million more people have lost their jobs and the economy has grown even weaker; and on and on.

Yet some people are critical because the President-elect is speaking to the public frequently--12 full blown press conferences and major speech just since the election--telling them how the situation is worsening and explaining the plans he and his administration are putting together to address the problems. I guess the critics would prefer the President-elect to tell the American public that everything is OK and all these problems being written aren't as bad as the media makes them out. Of course what Obama is explaining to the country is different from the campaign rhetoric--just as much as President Bush's agenda changed after 9/11. The only difference is the problems have cropped up just before the President-elect's inaguration rather than shortly after he assumes office.

I might say that this is a pleasant change from our current President, who went months between press conferences and "managed" the public's understanding of things by making sure that everyone in his administration gave out the same message, crafted by Karl Rove, every day. Do we remember "mission accomplished", "the economy remains strong", "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job", "we will re-build New Orleans", "waterboarding is really OK and not torture", and "Don (Rumsfeld), you've done a great job; we're sorry to see you go"? Would you rather have another four years of that, or a President who is willing and able to explain the problems and the alternatives for solving them to the people?

Some people only hear, see and interpret situations with pre-conceived conclusions. They mostly look backward and when they do look to the future, it's with negativity and no specific thoughts or ideas on how things might be done differently or better. They assume that their worst fears will be fulfilled. For me, I'm willing to give our new President some time to see if he can get things turned around. We'd all better hope that he can.

[Guest]

Let also not forget the economy was strong 6 out of his 8 years as President even though we had 9/11 and other major challenges. Who controlled congress the last two?

[Guest]

Yes - its a good thing he inherited a strong economy and a surplus before he drove the train over the cliff.

[Guest]

Republicans were in control of congress 12 of the last 14 years until January 2007. The quagmires that the Republicans created will take DECADES for the Democrats to fix. If you need a reminder of some of the wonderful things we can thank the Republicans for, try this:

Iraq war, record foreclosures, gas prices sky rocket, Katrina mismanagement, Enron (Bush's pals), Abu Graib, largest federal deficit in history.....

[Guest]

A couple of posters above are critical of our yet-to-be inagurated President because he is describing the difficulties faced by the country instead of how he would make good on his campaign promises. Managing expectations they call it.

Lest we forget, the campaign lasted almost two years. As recently as three months ago President Bush and John McCain said that our econmy is strong. Then 10 days before the election all financial heck broke loose--the worst financial crisis in 75 years became evident. Fannie and Freddie failed followed by several big banks and America's largest insurance compay; the final debate was almost suspended because Congress was meeting to craft a bailout bill; our banking system froze up and remains frozen today; the U.S. auto industry declared that they will go bankrupt and had to be temporarily bailed out (another financial emergency involving them will happen 3 months into the new administration); Israel invaded Gaza trying to take advantage of political support from the outgoing U.S. administration; and just since the election over 2 million more people have lost their jobs and the economy has grown even weaker; and on and on.

Yet some people are critical because the President-elect is speaking to the public frequently--12 full blown press conferences and major speech just since the election--telling them how the situation is worsening and explaining the plans he and his administration are putting together to address the problems. I guess the critics would prefer the President-elect to tell the American public that everything is OK and all these problems being written aren't as bad as the media makes them out. Of course what Obama is explaining to the country is different from the campaign rhetoric--just as much as President Bush's agenda changed after 9/11. The only difference is the problems have cropped up just before the President-elect's inaguration rather than shortly after he assumes office.

I might say that this is a pleasant change from our current President, who went months between press conferences and "managed" the public's understanding of things by making sure that everyone in his administration gave out the same message, crafted by Karl Rove, every day. Do we remember "mission accomplished", "the economy remains strong", "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job", "we will re-build New Orleans", "waterboarding is really OK and not torture", and "Don (Rumsfeld), you've done a great job; we're sorry to see you go"? Would you rather have another four years of that, or a President who is willing and able to explain the problems and the alternatives for solving them to the people?

Some people only hear, see and interpret situations with pre-conceived conclusions. They mostly look backward and when they do look to the future, it's with negativity and no specific thoughts or ideas on how things might be done differently or better. They assume that their worst fears will be fulfilled. For me, I'm willing to give our new President some time to see if he can get things turned around. We'd all better hope that he can.


YES....I have pre conceived notions about the President Elect, despite what it says I will not apologize for them. I backed them up with good solid information during the primary and the election. I have NO problem with his speaking to all of us often....I actually think it is a good idea !!!!!

I simply agreed with BTK and noted that this kind of rhetoric is exactly what has been trained to do as a community organizer. Does that mean he is lying or doing something wrong....never said that or even implied it.

OF COURSE you have chosen to do what it seems like all Obama supporters do.......first IT IS NOT HIS FAULT..nothing ever is....AND.....bash Bush either implicitly or by inferrence...it absolutely never fails and I expect that from you we will hear this on and on for years to come....anything bad can be traced back to Bush !!!

As an American I will hope and pray that President elect Obama succeeds...of course, folks like you who worship him will not accept that...it is either all adoration or nothing, but to turn this thread into a bash Bush seems a bit out of line.

[Guest]

Record foreclosures were caused largely by people buying homes they couldn’t afford in the first place not to mention the total mismanagement of Freddie and Fannie (run by Democrats) forcing banks to make bad loans. Watch the hearings on YouTube, it’s all there.

For most normal people you can't buy a $500,000 home at market peek that sold for half of that a few years earlier with 100% financing, interest only payments and double the property tax and expect to keep the house.

Gas prices sky rocket - The President doesn't control gas prices. Who blocks drilling for new oil and building new gas refineries? Democrats

Katrina mismanagement - Katrina was mismanaged before, during and after by their own state also run by Democrats.

Enron (Bush's pals) - oh please.

Abu Graib - I agree, holding terrorists that want to kill Americans is a bad thing.

Largest federal deficit in history - Totally Bush's fault for sure, no question about that.....and Obama wants to make it even larger.

Don't forget the Jimmy Carter years of double digit inflation, unemployment, gas lines, etc. You remember? Democrats had the majority in congress congress for 30 + straight years.

My point has always been, Government generally makes a mess of things Republican or Democrat.

I don’t trust them with my money anymore and now they want another trillion. I’d feel the same way if Bush, McCain or anyone else was President.

[Guest]

I'll have no trouble developing some personal grades for President Obama. But I will wait until he's completed a few semesters instead of grading him before he's even enrolled.

[Guest]

Obama's long since been enrolled my friend. I've been listening to his plans for two years. F

[Guest]

I'll have no trouble developing some personal grades for President Obama. But I will wait until he's completed a few semesters instead of grading him before he's even enrolled.


Nobody graded him !!! Every criticism of him cannot be used to get on a soapbox and defend him just because he said it nice or because you want to bash Bush.

This thread is about what is going on now...and to insure my credibility which at times is very doubted....this is a post I made on OCT 27 2008....
__________________________________________________ __________-
"I, frankly, do not care what pundits say about his proposals versus Sen McCain because he is not going to do anything he promises except those that include bigger government. I wanted to make this post so that I can come back every 6 months or so and remind you of what you are reaping.

If you feel I am over dramatic, I ask you to stand back..ignore what his campaign says..ignore his slick commercials...ignore his website.....INVESTIGATE...there is so much out there..not opinions..FACTS and so much more. He and his backers are buying this election and as scared as I was of him a few weeks ago when I was posting regularly, I am even more scared now.

He has used, to perfection, all that Sal Alinsky preached. Make them all feel like they are being "screwed" and tell them how bad they have it...THEN promise them how you will make it better !!! Think I made that up....check it out. It ain't goin to happen folks."
__________________________________________________ ___________---

It was true then and it remains a fact !!! If I am wrong, I am a big boy...I will come back and admit it...actually thought this kind of politicing would wait until he was in office for a bit, but already it has begun. I hope I am wrong...will come back and say I am sorry if so...have done it in my life many many times but this President Elect is no secret...just read about him and his philosophies. We are going to spend money and hear excuses for 4 years !

[Guest]

The week before the election there were articles in the various media the subject of which was Obama's "team" was....in anticipation of winning the election they were busy developing plans to manage expectations established during the campaign. The thrust of their strategy was to temper "how much and how fast" promises could "realistically" be accomplished. By it's very nature, the subject was not front page or national network worthy.

Secondly, each to his own beliefs....the reality of the Office of POTUS is setting in.

I am a victim of my background, training and experience....I acknowledge accomplishment....and for newbies (which includes Obama) a wait and see approach is prudent only because all that is available currently are the words.

I can only measure going forward based on the available information which has nothing to do with partisan politics and it sure as :cus: has nothing to do with Bush.

BTK

[Guest]

and it sure as has nothing to do with Bush.
______________________________________________

AMEN

[Guest]

Same people - same message. Bush was wonderful and Obama is a socialist and all the other things he has been called. The majority spoke on election day and there are those who can't wait to get their "I told you so" in, real or imagined.
Also, I believe we are allowed to put any response in the thread we want as long as it is polite. I don't think individual members are allowed to say what or who we can talk about. If it is inappropriate, Tony will take it off the site. This is the political forum.

[Guest]

**snip**I can only measure going forward based on the available information which has nothing to do with partisan politics and it sure as :cus: has nothing to do with Bush.BTK

Probably because if we look back, it has everything to do with President Bush.......and it doesn't look good. :0000000000luvmyhors

[Guest]

yes anyone can say what they want etc, all what you said, however, when the response is inaccurate there is need for clarification.

Based on responses like yours, and others like it in tone and reference, I can only conclude that if a person does not 100% fully embrace Obama they are either against him or for Bush. A rather biased, inaccurate conclusion.

There are many who are not an Obama supporter...that DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate into being a Bush supporter....but if that gives comfort please enjoy the inaccuracy.

Many of us support the position of POTUS, and last I checked we were each allowed to do that in our own way.

Some of us choose to wait for Obama to become POTUS, and we also choose to wait for accomplishment before accolades are given. At this point in time he has won the election....THATS ALL... EVERYTHING SINCE is rhetoric...this is not negative....just a fact of the matter....this does not mean for or against...it means we choose to judge on actions not words....VERY SIMPLY THAT IS ALL IT MEANS.

There is the little understood reality of the office POTUS that there are some things they cannot discuss why they did or did not do something, regardless the message it conveys publicly....and until such time as Obama is in fact POTUS he will not know the extent of this curse.

My hypothesis regarding his managing expectations is based on that reality.....NOTHING MORE.

BTK

[Guest]

I was watching the news this morning covering the preparations for President Obama's inaguration. The comment was made that a huge majority of Americans were looking forward to the new political leadership in Washington. People interviewed demonstrated a warmth, enthusiasm and hope for whatever changes will result. Several said they had never been more proud to be an American.

But there are some who anticipate nothing but bad things in the next four years. It's too bad that they choose not to join in the feelings of most Americans. How sad that everyone won't share in the uplifting emotions of this time.

In almost all respects--fiscal, social, domestic and international, the new President will begin his term with problems on every front that are unprecedented. Bad things have already happened. He has a huge and complicated agenda, far moreso than anything anticipated during the campaign.

The new President will need the support, confidence, prayers and patience of all Americans that he and his team make the right decisions in the right sequence to make things better for all of us. He has mine.

There will be plenty of time in two or three years to begin to determine what the plans and programs of the new administration are working. Plenty of time to determine whether our confidence has been fulfilled.

[Guest]

dkl: I totally agree with you.

Obama is slippery and in way over his messianic head. Best you can do now is tough it out until he's out, hopefully in 4 years.

The problem I also have is that Republicans continue to look like mushy fools. If that party's struggle comes out with true Conservatives at the helm, then there is real hope.

P.S. I don't require anyone to agree with my opinion, so please restrain yourselves.:)

[Guest]

I was watching the news this morning covering the preparations for President Obama's inaguration. The comment was made that a huge majority of Americans were looking forward to the new political leadership in Washington. People interviewed demonstrated a warmth, enthusiasm and hope for whatever changes will result. Several said they had never been more proud to be an American.

But there are some who anticipate nothing but bad things in the next four years. It's too bad that they choose not to join in the feelings of most Americans. How sad that everyone won't share in the uplifting emotions of this time.

In almost all respects--fiscal, social, domestic and international, the new President will begin his term with problems on every front that are unprecedented. Bad things have already happened. He has a huge and complicated agenda, far moreso than anything anticipated during the campaign.

The new President will need the support, confidence, prayers and patience of all Americans that he and his team make the right decisions in the right sequence to make things better for all of us. He has mine.

There will be plenty of time in two or three years to begin to determine what the plans and programs of the new administration are working. Plenty of time to determine whether our confidence has been fulfilled.


The exact same phenomenon occurred in 2001. A very significant majority were tired of the Clintons and wanted to move on. Yet, there was also a very significant minority who thought Bush "stole" the election and refused to move from that theme. They then proceeded to take every negative thing that happened during the last 8 years as proof that they were right and that Bush was the worst president ever. How sad (for both them and the country) that these people chose to spend the last 8 years in an effort to undermine Bush and help cripple his presidency. Even to this day they can't talk about the future without taking a pot shot at Bush.

All I can say to these people is that if you truly are concerned about the future and if you truly want the nation to be supportive of Obama, you should stop the negative attacks on Bush. These attacks do nothing but personalize the issues and strengthen the resolve of those predisposed to be wary of Obama to vocalize their negative perceptions. Most people will agree that Bush made some significant mistakes and I, for one, am looking forward to a new administration. However, an honest reflection of his presidency will also show that he has been blamed for a lot of things that were outside his control and also not given credit for a lot of things that have gone right but have been under-reported by the media.

[Guest]

I"m flabberghasted!

Who does what, can do what and is responsibile for what still seems like questions for "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader." The Roles of The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are cast in concrete, yet very few seem to understand those roles and instead sound like this nation is actually a monarchy, or worse, a dictatorship.

1. The Deficit: The Executive Branch proposes a budget, but Congress actually passes it. I've sat in enough budget justifications before Congressional staffers to cause me to buy stock in Maalox. There are deficits because BOTH the Executive proposed them AND Congress granted them to be. So when you seek to condemn anyone for the deficit, look at 1600 PA Ave and Capitol Hill simultaneously, as there's no deficit without mutual consent of the Executive and the Congress.

2. The Economy: Congress passes the laws affecting the economy, the Executive Branch enforces the laws through regulations based on the Congress' laws, and Congress has oversight responsibility as to the success (or failure) of the laws and their enforcement. That success (or failure) becomes the basis for subsequent legislation by Congress and a revised budget to the Executive Branch to amend enforcement.

3. Immigration: Same as #2, just substitute "immigration" for "the economy."

4. Pick a topic, any topic: Same as #2, just substitute "______" for "the economy."

Every 4 years a President is elected under the mantra of "the past was bad, the present isn't all so great, but I can make the near future better." But the President can't do it! ! ! ! ! The President (Executive Branch) is only one prong on the governmental trident. Congress still owns the law-making role and money-dispensing role. That's the check-and-balance which keeps the US Government from looking like China's or Jordan's.

I'm willing to give the President-Elect all the support I can post-inauguration, but only to the limit of his role and responsibilities as authorized and limited by Article 2 of the Constitution. The role and responsibilities as authorized and limited to Congress are within Article 1 of the Constition. They do not overlap, are not comingled, nor can they be.

Forget the campaign rhetoric of the Presidential election. It means nothing now, as it meant nothing then - both candidates did not sound "Presidential," but instead sounded "King-like." However, the public tends to follow princes(ses), and not knowledgeable leaders, because knowledgeable leaders know their lawful limitations and don't make promises of any kind that they know can't be kept. However, the concept that "the king can do no wrong, or be incorrect in any fashion" is the basis for most campaigns - and "we" fall for it all the time (candidate-regardless).

So, all the "change" in the world can be promised during the campaign, but the newly-elected President now has as his next-door neighbor a Congress with a 9% approval rating - and he can't get anything done on the street without the agreement of this next-door neighbor. He can't get the money for anything unless the next-door neighbor authorizes it - by legislation and by passing a budget submission. And the next-door neighbor can still pass all sorts of laws which the Executive may not like or want, but Executive is sworn to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [my] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, the President must administer ALL the laws, based on the funding provided, whether s/he likes it or not.

The President fulfills "executive" responsibilities - not monarchial ones. As citizens, we had better be aware of the difference.

So, changing out the residents of 1600 PA Ave, DC without concurrent exchange of most of the 545 in Congress is like replacing the oil filter on a car and putting the old oil back in the crankcase. The car still runs, but for how long and how well and with how much damage to the engine?

[Guest]

I was watching the news this morning covering the preparations for President Obama's inaguration. The comment was made that a huge majority of Americans were looking forward to the new political leadership in Washington. People interviewed demonstrated a warmth, enthusiasm and hope for whatever changes will result. Several said they had never been more proud to be an American.

But there are some who anticipate nothing but bad things in the next four years. It's too bad that they choose not to join in the feelings of most Americans. How sad that everyone won't share in the uplifting emotions of this time.

In almost all respects--fiscal, social, domestic and international, the new President will begin his term with problems on every front that are unprecedented. Bad things have already happened. He has a huge and complicated agenda, far moreso than anything anticipated during the campaign.

The new President will need the support, confidence, prayers and patience of all Americans that he and his team make the right decisions in the right sequence to make things better for all of us. He has mine.

There will be plenty of time in two or three years to begin to determine what the plans and programs of the new administration are working. Plenty of time to determine whether our confidence has been fulfilled.


1. Your implication that we who opposed President Elect Obama are hoping for the worse is, at best, partisan and speaks to what others say on here and else where that with you folks, you either must adore or butt out

In addition, listening to news broadcasts concerning the President elect is anything but objective !

2. To imply with your "He has mine" comment that we who opposed his election do not pray for the President elect is somewhat....cant think of the word but I find it offense. Do not judge me or others with your partisan views...it is just not fair.

3. I cannot understand and never will understand how it became the logic that if we do not adore we are against the President of the United States....I never heard, read or heard that implied anywhere.....why do you keep insuation that we, who opposed his election, are somehow second class people ?

Our current President has been under PERSONAL, not policy, attack for the last 5 years...I do not hear anyone attacking the President Elect on a personal level, but you expect everyone to stand tall and not disagree with anything he says.....explain why ?

[Guest]

A couple of posters above are critical of our yet-to-be inagurated President because he is describing the difficulties faced by the country instead of how he would make good on his campaign promises. Managing expectations they call it.

Lest we forget, the campaign lasted almost two years. As recently as three months ago President Bush and John McCain said that our econmy is strong. Then 10 days before the election all financial heck broke loose--the worst financial crisis in 75 years became evident. Fannie and Freddie failed followed by several big banks and America's largest insurance compay; the final debate was almost suspended because Congress was meeting to craft a bailout bill; our banking system froze up and remains frozen today; the U.S. auto industry declared that they will go bankrupt and had to be temporarily bailed out (another financial emergency involving them will happen 3 months into the new administration); Israel invaded Gaza trying to take advantage of political support from the outgoing U.S. administration; and just since the election over 2 million more people have lost their jobs and the economy has grown even weaker; and on and on.

Yet some people are critical because the President-elect is speaking to the public frequently--12 full blown press conferences and major speech just since the election--telling them how the situation is worsening and explaining the plans he and his administration are putting together to address the problems. I guess the critics would prefer the President-elect to tell the American public that everything is OK and all these problems being written aren't as bad as the media makes them out. Of course what Obama is explaining to the country is different from the campaign rhetoric--just as much as President Bush's agenda changed after 9/11. The only difference is the problems have cropped up just before the President-elect's inaguration rather than shortly after he assumes office.

I might say that this is a pleasant change from our current President, who went months between press conferences and "managed" the public's understanding of things by making sure that everyone in his administration gave out the same message, crafted by Karl Rove, every day. Do we remember "mission accomplished", "the economy remains strong", "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job", "we will re-build New Orleans", "waterboarding is really OK and not torture", and "Don (Rumsfeld), you've done a great job; we're sorry to see you go"? Would you rather have another four years of that, or a President who is willing and able to explain the problems and the alternatives for solving them to the people?

Some people only hear, see and interpret situations with pre-conceived conclusions. They mostly look backward and when they do look to the future, it's with negativity and no specific thoughts or ideas on how things might be done differently or better. They assume that their worst fears will be fulfilled. For me, I'm willing to give our new President some time to see if he can get things turned around. We'd all better hope that he can.



:agree::agree::agree::agree:

[Guest]

The economy was an empty shell during bush leagues presidency...he bankrupted every business he was ever involved with including the United States of America!
he is the first president that we have ever had with a lower IQ than me....that's really scary! doug11

[Guest]

The economy was an empty shell during bush leagues presidency...he bankrupted every business he was ever involved with including the United States of America!
he is the first president that we have ever had with a lower IQ than me....that's really scary! doug11


AND this has WHAT to do with what the original thread was about ????

And it also makes my point about the personal attacks on the current President. And we are "forbidden" from not agreeing with policies of the incoming President !!!! Amazing...if you dont fall at his feet, you must be stupid, out of touch or dont care !

[Guest]

I did some unscientific digging today and plugged some numbers in a spread sheet. I’m no statistician so I did my best. I listed all the Presidents, years they served, average unemployment rate, average inflation rate and the misery index for each year since 1948.

If you look at the numbers, Bill Clinton and G.W Bush generally faired the best. By far the worst numbers came in the Jimmy Carter years. The economy was in pretty bad shape and excluding the recent foreclosure rate it was even worse than it is now.

After Ronald Reagan took office he ramped up defense spending and slashed by a huge margin the federal tax rates including the cap gains. It didn’t take long for the numbers to turn around for the better. In fact when he cut taxes, revenues to the federal government almost doubled as did spending by the democratic controlled congress.

By in large the numbers posted along side G.W. Bush were pretty stable and in line with those from Bill Clinton. It’s only been in the last six months that the economy really has gone in the weeds mostly caused by the housing crash.

If you look at the unemployment numbers for this year and last they were actually pretty low on average (except for the last six months). I don’t attribute unemployment as a major factor in people loosing homes. It’s clear that many (not all) but many got themselves in too deep and purchased at exactly the wrong time (peak of the market) and couldn’t hang on to their house. This started long before the unemployment numbers went up.

So by and large other than a few factors, we’ve seen some pretty bad economies over the years and for the most part they recovered pretty much on their own. Except for two occasions. After Reagan, it recovered dramatically after the tax cuts and defense spending. After FDR’s new deal with huge social spending initiatives to pull the economy back, the great depression was prolonged by as much as seven years some would say.

You have to factor in wars and other misc events over the last 60 years but for the most part both Democrat and Republicans have see good economies and bad economies.

But never in our history has the government EVER spent 1.5 trillion dollars and pulled us out of a recession successfully nor do they need to. It’s a BAD idea. I can only surmise they know this to be true and the bail outs are nothing more than a grab for private sector control and to make yet even more people dependent on the government.

Our elected leaders have lost their minds and Obama is leading the charge while the spineless Republicans sit back and watch.

Obama's economic policies are bad news for this country and all the warm fuzzy inauguration happiness won't change it. It's one thing when the economy is down, it's quite another to drive a stake in it's heart with strategies that have failed miserably in the past.

[Guest]

Veering away from the personalities involved in our politics, I started another thread entitled "Request For A Thoughtful Response" a few days ago. In my initial post I ask anyone who chooses to answer what would you do?

There's been a lot of discussion here and in other threads about what we shouldn't do and how the plans of the Congress are wrong and nothing like what they're considering has ever worked. OK, those are fair criticisms. But it leaves the question on the table of what should be done?

Why don't we continue the discussion over there. Understand that my intention in starting that thread was intended to focus only on the economic crisis facing the U.S. GDP has dropped to half of the rate even earlier this year. The Christmas retail season was the worst in decades. Foreclosures are at a record high. Banks and insurance companies have failed; more are expected to fail. The auto industry might fail and add 3 million to the unemployment rolls. Home prices continue to plummet. The stock market has lost close to 50% of it's value since about a year ago. Unemployment is skyrocketing and is expected to exceed 10% early in 2009. The credit markets are frozen; banks aren't lending. If the economy worsens much more we wil experience stagflation--where GDP is negative and yet there is still some inflation.

So the question posed there is what would you do if you were President? An equally important element of every answer should be why? There should be some economic or empirical example of why the suggested course of action will work.

In this thread there's no room for criticism of political leaders past or present. No discussion of personalities, parties, past alliances, experience...none of that stuff. The question is quite simple...

If you were President what would you do to fix the economic crisis? What evidence supports your suggested course of action?

See you in the other thread.

[Guest]

Veering away from the personalities involved in our politics, I started another thread entitled "Request For A Thoughtful Response" a few days ago. In my initial post I ask anyone who chooses to answer what would you do?

There's been a lot of discussion here and in other threads about what we shouldn't do and how the plans of the Congress are wrong and nothing like what they're considering has ever worked. OK, that's a fair criticism. But it leaves the question on the table of what should be done?

Why don't we continue the discussion over there. Understand that my intention in starting that thread was intended to focus only on the economic crisis facing the U.S. GDP has dropped to half of the rate even earlier this year. The Christmas retail season was the worst in decades. Foreclosures are at a record high. Banks and insurance companies have failed; more are expected to fail. The auto industry might fail and add 3 million to the unemployment rolls. Home prices continue to plummet. The stock market has lost close to 50% of it's value since abouta year ago. Unemployment is skyrocketing and is expected to exceed 10% early in 2009. The credit markets are frozen; banks aren't lending. If the economy worsens much more we wil experience stagflation--where GDP is negative and yet there is still some inflation.

So the question posed there is what would you do if you were President? An equally important element of every answer should be why? There should be some economic or empirical example of why the suggested course of action will work.

In this thread there's no room for criticism of political leaders past or present. No discussion of personalities, parties, past alliances, experience...none of that stuff. The question is quite simple...

If you were President what would you do and why?



There is NO relationship between this thread and the one you began. Your thread is thoughtful and enjoyable reading but is a different subject ! I cannot speak for the person who began the thread but I just reread his intial post (AND your reply which did not allude to your other thread either).

I enjoy reading your thoughful and well structered posts, but your total and complete bias on President Elect Obama makes me read them all with a sort of slanted eye, as you find every opportunity to strike a political statement ALWAYS, 100% to one side of the aisle.

Not sure if this particular post is a "commerical" for your others but it does not speak to the subject in anway !

[Guest]

There is NO relationship between this thread and the one you began. ...

Not sure if this particular post is a "commerical" for your others but it does not speak to the subject in anway !

You're right, Bucco. The other thread I began a few days ago was intended to completely disregard the personalities, history and expectations regarding the old and new political administrations. It was intended to begin a dialog on what solutions seem to exist to resolve the financial crisis, which should be adopted, and why.

My intent was to leave behind any dialog regarding the personalities of our political leaders and focus on a new and totally impersonal question of what should be done to reverse our economic decline and begin to rebuild the U.S. economy. If that interests you, I'd enjoy your reply in the other thread. If discussion of the personalities in our political leadership is of greater interest, threads like this one might be more to people's liking.

[Guest]

Re: an earlier post

Actually the financial storm started many months ago and there were many intelligent folks who foresaw what was coming down the pike (Ron Paul, for instance). For most politicians including Bush and McCain we were merely experiencing a "bump in the road". Even a financial neophyte could see that was not the case and the situation was much worse and the potential damage was very serious.

As to Obama's campaign promises, I'm not surprised about the back pedaling. I was certain that once he got his eyes on the National Intelligemce Assesment and got more info on the way things really were financially, he'd realize the financial problems would eat up his campaign hopes.

One could say that his daily doomsaying is a scare tactic, but I'd rather think it is more a policy of telling folks like it is...VERY SERIOUS. Americans are a resourceful lot, and armed with the facts, usually make good decisions. Up until now, all we've been fed is pablum which many have chosen to accept without looking behind the curtain.

There are so many factors WORLDWIDE working against financial stability it's hard to see where the "stimuli" packages will have any meaningful effect here. Not to mention the fact that the deficit has gone vertical. Great news for us, our kids, grandkids, and great grands.

[Guest]

1. Your implication that we who opposed President Elect Obama are hoping for the worse is, at best, partisan and speaks to what others say on here and else where that with you folks, you either must adore or butt out

In addition, listening to news broadcasts concerning the President elect is anything but objective !

2. To imply with your "He has mine" comment that we who opposed his election do not pray for the President elect is somewhat....cant think of the word but I find it offense. Do not judge me or others with your partisan views...it is just not fair.

3. I cannot understand and never will understand how it became the logic that if we do not adore we are against the President of the United States....I never heard, read or heard that implied anywhere.....why do you keep insuation that we, who opposed his election, are somehow second class people ?

Our current President has been under PERSONAL, not policy, attack for the last 5 years...I do not hear anyone attacking the President Elect on a personal level, but you expect everyone to stand tall and not disagree with anything he says.....explain why ?

Adore means to love and worship!

No one is asking anyone to "adore" the new President. I, personally, am saying, "Just give the guy a chance!". Wow, he's walking into problems on all fronts that no other President in history has faced all at once.

I remember some of these same posters urging people to support President Bush in the war in Iraq. "Support your President!" Well, that's all I'm saying here about President Obama. "Support your President."

BTW, the current President Bush was under policy attacks, not personal attacks, don't fool yourself. Face that fact, if nothing else.

[Guest]

Adore means to love and worship!

No one is asking anyone to "adore" the new President. I, personally, am saying, "Just give the guy a chance!". Wow, he's walking into problems on all fronts that no other President in history has faced all at once.

I remember some of these same posters urging people to support President Bush in the war in Iraq. "Support your President!" Well, that's all I'm saying here about President Obama. "Support your President."

BTW, the current President Bush was under policy attacks, not personal attacks, don't fool yourself. Face that fact, if nothing else.


I am being asked on here to stop criticizing policies I do not think are correct. Now, that to me is asking total and complete subjugation !!!!

I keep saying everyone is going to support him BUT NOT BLINDLY as it seems you would prefer.

Oh, and if you are looking for personal attacks on the current President, just look in this thread for the IQ remark. It has been and continues to be personal about the current President. Much of his policy needs to be critiqued and I will join that but the personal crap and that is what it is, crap...is way out of line.

I will suppport whomever is my President, but will not ever do blindly and will say I disagree when I do. I am reserving my comments on such things at GTMO until I hear his remarks on such and will never attack him personally nor his family as seems to be the norm in many corners.

[Guest]

Re: an earlier post

Actually the financial storm started many months ago and there were many intelligent folks who foresaw what was coming down the pike (Ron Paul, for instance). For most politicians including Bush and McCain we were merely experiencing a "bump in the road". Even a financial neophyte could see that was not the case and the situation was much worse and the potential damage was very serious.

As to Obama's campaign promises, I'm not surprised about the back pedaling. I was certain that once he got his eyes on the National Intelligemce Assesment and got more info on the way things really were financially, he'd realize the financial problems would eat up his campaign hopes.

One could say that his daily doomsaying is a scare tactic, but I'd rather think it is more a policy of telling folks like it is...VERY SERIOUS. Americans are a resourceful lot, and armed with the facts, usually make good decisions. Up until now, all we've been fed is pablum which many have chosen to accept without looking behind the curtain.

There are so many factors WORLDWIDE working against financial stability it's hard to see where the "stimuli" packages will have any meaningful effect here. Not to mention the fact that the deficit has gone vertical. Great news for us, our kids, grandkids, and great grands.

Well said. Also, the increasingly bleak outcast on the economy only became more evident later in his campaign, and as you said, once he got his hands on all the data he's had to change his priorities to match what has changed in the world. If he tried to keep up with some of his campaign promises in the face of negative spiral of the economy, it would be criminal. I do like the fact I think he is feeding us the facts. I don't necessarily agree with the stimulus package as it stands, but that remains to be hashed out by congress.

[Guest]

You're right, Bucco. The other thread I began a few days ago was intended to completely disregard the personalities, history and expectations regarding the old and new political administrations. It was intended to begin a dialog on what solutions seem to exist to resolve the financial crisis, which should be adopted, and why.

My intent was to leave behind any dialog regarding the personalities of our political leaders and focus on a new and totally impersonal question of what should be done to reverse our economic decline and begin to rebuild the U.S. economy. If that interests you, I'd enjoy your reply in the other thread. If discussion of the personalities in our political leadership is of greater interest, threads like this one might be more to people's liking.

I respect all you say and have read every post in your other thread. I am not qualified nor am I able to structure things as you and others can do and as such I learn a lot from reading there.

I responded to this thread and immediately it became a bash Bush thread.

Look, President Obama is going to be criticized, and you supporters cannot yell race or bash Bush every time that happens. And it always gets down to the personal level with folks discussing the President (see remarks on IQ). I have never, and frankly have never heard any, personal remarks about President elect Obama.

Somehow this thread became something I do not think BTK meant it to be. BTK simply made a comment about the backpedaling and I agreed with him. It was not aimed specifically at the financial situation at all.

Somehow it became a bash Bush festival from there.

Listen, your thread and most of your posts are great for reading and in my case sending me out to study a bit. As I said I dont like your taking shots at every chance at the last years ignoring those democrats who failed the country in the congress, but that is the nature of politics and I can read around that at times. My not posting in one of those kind of threads is simply an indication that I have nothing to add of any substance but do enjoy reading the comments of you and others.

[Guest]

substantially off subject. The usual mix is ever present and welcome obviously. The other usual that is ever present is, the threads when taken off subject usually wind up in a my guy is better than your guy. And of course there is the consistent droning and deteriorating to the level of measuring/bashing Bush...no matter the subject.

This thread has been erroneously categorized as a "...discussion of personalities..."

From VK' latest post...."If discussion of the personalities in our political leadership is of greater interest, threads like this one might be more to people's liking".

This thread was not submitted as a discussion of personalities. The subject matter was very specifically aimed at performance....promises made VS promises kept. If one would go back to the beginning and note the not so subtle transition (polite for hijack) from the subject of the thread to the usual thrumming of personalities.

I don't think the answer to holding the deterioration of political threads to "discussions of personalities" at bay is to post a political thread under a different forum.

In my humble opinion, it should be more appropriate to request in a Political thread that responses should not be personality discussions by actually pointing out the subject of the thread. I have tried this in the past to no avail as it seems there are those who have a single purpose/objective and that is to slant every discussion to personality bickering.

If taking a political subject, with a no personality discussion wanted guideline works simply by posting it in another forum, then why not place the subject in the appropriate forum with the same requested guideline? We are all dealing with what we think we read or our individual interpretation thereof VS the writer's actual intent VS what some participants would rather the subject be (no matter what). I know, how about we request a new non discussion of personalities political thread:laugh:.

Anyway, see ya at the other forum to monitor success of the adherence to the request.

BTK

[Guest]

inference his post was to be in a different forum than political I must plead guilty to one of my references of...what was posted VS what I thought I read...
So all that is germaine in my post above is the wrongful categaorization of my thread as a personality discussion.

....don't ya just hate when you catch yourself with the egg on the face??

BTK

[Guest]

"The Economy" has certainly become as big and interesting a subject as "Political". Maybe it needs it's own forum.

If such a forum was established, maybe the discussion would be more on economic theory and less on the personalities that create economic policy. Doubtful, but possible I suppose.

[Guest]

BTK: I'm sorry but I don't understand. You say "with a message every single day that either paints things blacker (no pun intended)..." I admit I almost closed the thread right there and now wish I had listened to my little inner voice. Sorry, but if you say "no pun intended" you mean you intended something but are being coy. I thought I'd read the entire thread before giving up. It went on: "first because he is a politician"... "second he is a lawyer".... I don't get it. None of those reference personality?

In general: I heard about this site in early October. As a newbie I got so discouraged reading TOTV political posts that I stopped reading them by the end of October. In response to my few posts: I didn't mind having my toes stepped on but didn't care for the heavy stomp of the rhetorical boots. Having recently read the warning about personal attacks, I just stopped by to see if the over-all tone is different. Guess I shouldn't stop in again. Same paint brushes, same artists, same results.

I pray our new president is able to find some light with which to guide us in the next year. I pray Congress, all of Congress, wakes up and does what is best for all of us. I pray we see improvement in the status of our country in the next four years.

[Guest]

If Congress does what's best for all of us (rather than the special interest groupe, PAC's and lobbyists) ..... well that certainly would be "change".

[Guest]

...
...
I pray our new president is able to find some light with which to guide us in the next year. I pray Congress, all of Congress, wakes up and does what is best for all of us. I pray we see improvement in the status of our country in the next four years.
While I believe in the Power of Prayer, I also believe that God helps those who help themselves.

The President is not the equivalent of an Old Testament prophet. He may have Teddy Roosevelt's "Bully Pulpit," but Congress controls what legislation is processed and the pursestrings as well. The President is not the public's ombudsman in DC.

Congress - that 9% approval rated group - will never "wake up." It as an institution has no reason to, as long as over 90% of the incumbents have over 15-20-30-40 in office. You will never see any "change" there without concurrent personnel change.