not logged in
| re: Obama's first 100 Days | |
Posted by:  |
Pudding 09:57 pm UTC 05/03/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - John_Galt 10:23 am UTC 05/01/09 |
| > Well, to be totally fair, Bush inherited a recession, but > didn't weigh down the economy in new regulation and the > economy quickly recovered. C'mon, you should be smart enough not to compare what Obama inherited to what Bush inherited and try and make an excuse for Bush piss-poor management. Bush got $Billions in surplus, Obama got $Trillions in deficit. Not having a lot of regulations hasn't worked has it? because its let greedy bastards to make obscene amounts of money at the expense of the average hardworking individual. That isn't a free market, that's shitting on the little people and being allowed to get away with it because of de-regulations > It's true Bush ran deficits some years and really should > have vetoed a budget or two rather than just complaining > and signing. Both Bush and Obama are completely failing > to address the real problem: Entitlement commitments are > exploding as baby boomers are getting older. There will > be less and less room for any discretionary spending as > the problem worsens and deficits will be certain even with > (or especially with) tax hikes. That's a huge problem all over. Britain is going bankrupt because of it and here in New Zealand they've introduced a saving scheme so you can put a certain amount away each payday and the Government will add to it, in the long run it should make things a bit easier. Although it might seem I have socialist (a very misunderstood and over-used word used by Republicans)tendencies, I'm not for just giving money out to everyone, especially the lazy fat bastards who sit on their arse all day eating lard burgers and wanking it off in front of a Playstation > If the United States hasn't recovered economically in 1-2 > years, then something is *really* wrong and the government > has stepped on the recovery. In the United States, > historically speaking, fiscal policy can't and doesn't do > much to stimulate economic growth, but it can and > occasionally does work to stomp it out. Monetary policy, > on the other hand, seems to be a little more effective at > heating things up, but no one is cheering for Alan > Greenspan these days. > > I humbly predict that Obama will make his supporters proud > for changes on non-economic fronts. That's where he is > going against the polls, showing courage, and making > progress. I don't agree with him, but I have to admit > he's living up to billing. Something is 'really wrong' now and America requires free trade with other countries to be able turn the economy. Yet a lot of those countries are battening down the hatches and just looking at exporting rather than importing, which any economist will tell you won't work in the long run. So intricate is America's and the Worlds economies linked that when America gets a sniffle the world catches a cold, which is why when things started to go shit-shaped in America the world started to panic. I really think that a lot of Republicans don't fully grasp how important to the world America's financial stability and influence is. Some believe that so long as America is doing OK then that's all that matters, and fuck the world, but you can't screw the pooch and not expect to get screwed back at some point. One thing that Obama is, he's very smart. Bush couldn't really handle more than a couple of things on his plate at one time, Obama has a dozen or so different things happening. No Obama isn't perfect and is bound to fuck up along the way, but I think Republicans need to give him a little slack and I don't mean 6 foot of rope. > I don't know enough about John Key or Helen Clark or New > Zealand itself to have a firm opinion, but he's becoming > *very* popular in the United States. My guess is that > just through the power of his personality and whatever > he's talking about, he generates significant foreign > investment in New Zealand. Keep us updated given that we > don't get decent coverage of New Zealand, but we get too > much coverage of Obama. John Key got handed the same shit plate as Obama did, just not as big, unfortunately we're not fully kept in the loop on how he's tackling the problem. Instead we're getting the usual nonsense back-biting tit-for-tat rubbish that dominates the news. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - John_Galt 10:23 am UTC 05/01/09 |
| Next: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - John_Galt 08:01 am UTC 05/06/09 |
| Thread: |
|