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

AMEN

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.

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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 ?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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

Originally Posted by doug11

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 !

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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 !