Thoughts? How credible is this? I forget if it was Samprany of Orincolo but one of them pretty much states that the opposite is what's happening, that the republicans are the ones in the death spiral.
quote:The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I met the Samprany of Orincolo once. He had an enormous hat.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I met the Samprany of Orincolo once. He had an enormous hat.
With little red tassles all around the rim, quietly giving away the fact that its all just a ruse by the Mexicans to take over a land that never belonged to them, but no one believes the truth and calls it a conspiracy. But I know better.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It's an article from the Telegraph (AKA the Torygraph - a newspaper which is about as Right-leaning as you can get and still be able to stand up) written by a commentator for Fox News.
Were you expecting raindrops and kittens? Obama is clearly not going to be one of this guy's favourite things.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I dunno, I've been reading about Barack Obama's stunning decline since the New Hampshire primaries back in January (?) '08.
--j_k
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It's a crock of crap.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Republicrats, both of them, were to crash and burn?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I could go for a third and fourth political party to choose from...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole. You'd think free market democratic principles would work here. Supply and demand. Few are demanding Democrats or Republicans, so shouldn't a new centrist party step in to fill the need?
I'd absolutely love someone else to vote for right now.
I don't count the Tea Party. They're about as centrist on the political spectrum as gamma rays are on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Without going point by point over this amusingly slanted diatribe (which, as all good diatribes should, contains just enough truth to be arguable), I would like to point out the ridiculousness of the negative polls. A 51% negative poll does not mean that half the country disagrees with the direction he's going, as every right-wing commentator has implied as fact. That number also includes the sizable percentage of people who feel he's not liberal enough, and I don't think FOX News gets to count those as being on their side against Obama.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Republicrats, both of them, were to crash and burn?
... no? Lisa I think the thing you don't understand about Noam Chomsky is that even he realizes that if he were actually in charge, the corrupting influences of power and conflicting interests would lead him to make a lot of the same mistakes he crows about as a non-elected official.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Without going point by point over this amusingly slanted diatribe (which, as all good diatribes should, contains just enough truth to be arguable), I would like to point out the ridiculousness of the negative polls. A 51% negative poll does not mean that half the country disagrees with the direction he's going, as every right-wing commentator has implied as fact. That number also includes the sizable percentage of people who feel he's not liberal enough, and I don't think FOX News gets to count those as being on their side against Obama.
Did it also bother you that like 7 out of those "10 Reasons" were essentially the same reason? Call it: "fails to inspire," "politically weak," "failing on message," "seems not to be a jingoist," and you're ranting on and on about the same thing, which is *you* don't like him.
The thing that really gets my goat about these little lists is how disingenuous that always feels, and it's as if the writer of the column has no notion that his screed is not actually going to read as what it actually is. That and the column is so poorly supported by the facts- and what I mean by that is, what is assumed here is not in evidence, and needs to be demonstrated clearly and rationally, and needs to consider opposing viewpoints in order to effectively demonstrate their weaknesses. This does *none* of that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole."
The process is controlled by the parties. I don't find it amazing that a serious attempt at getting off the ground hasn't happened: The game is rigged to prevent exactly that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Republicrats, both of them, were to crash and burn?
... no? Lisa I think the thing you don't understand about Noam Chomsky is that even he realizes that if he were actually in charge, the corrupting influences of power and conflicting interests would lead him to make a lot of the same mistakes he crows about as a non-elected official.
Where did Chomsky come into this?
[ August 15, 2010, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That article is a mess of junk, but even if it were not and it managed to make a persuasive case, it wouldn't affect the viability of the republican death spiral as a theory very much.
Obama, even if he was doing very poorly as a president, wouldn't be stopping the intergenerational decline of the G.O.P. and conservatism as an ideology.
Conservatism is floated electorally by people over the age of 65.
Younger people increasingly dislike conservatism and embrace liberal policy.
The younger you go, the more liberal you get, to the extent that the under-35 demographic is overwhelmingly, amazingly liberal.
These patterns don't alter much as people age. The whole 'people turn more conservative as they age' thing is a myth.
Even the conservatives are listening: they have tried to instill fear over 'terror babies' to give them a convoluted opportunity to attack the 14th amendment in the vain hope that it can blunt the effect of hispanic demographics swelling and also being remarkably liberal.
As for the libertarians: they don't get to have a 'death spiral,' because they've never been viable as a political group in the first place. Their proposals have no popular viability or judicial favor, and the LP is run by exactly the kind of crazies that the libertarians will, naturally, have crawling to the top of their molehill.
Reasonable people who would otherwise vote LP are mostly kept from doing so because the party's so full of crazy fail and they keep getting headed by completely inviable dolts. Oh well. Even if they did get to be something of a powerful bloc, they would only aid the liberals more by splitting the vote between old-school and new-school conservatives. So I would support them the same way I support the tea party. Woo hoo! Go libertarianism! Taxation is theft lol!
the GOP will probably get a typical midterm surge, maybe even hit a majority (they better).
I sure hope they enjoy it!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Wow, that was wildly unnecessary, Orincoro. This from someone who - pardon me for saying so, Lisa - thinks her sort of politics would be ineffective, disastrous, dangerous, and callous if actually implemented.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
Quite right. I see our current situation as more like admitted statists vs. closet statists. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Wow, that was wildly unnecessary, Orincoro. This from someone who - pardon me for saying so, Lisa - thinks her sort of politics would be ineffective, disastrous, dangerous, and callous if actually implemented.
I agree. I was going to comment on the exact same thing.
I don't care if you agree with her or not, your language here went way over disagreement and into personal attack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "It's kind of amazing that a centrist party hasn't at least seriously attempted to get off the ground in the last two years. Both Republicans and Democrats are roundly hated by the electorate as a whole."
The process is controlled by the parties. I don't find it amazing that a serious attempt at getting off the ground hasn't happened: The game is rigged to prevent exactly that.
There's a disadvantage, sure. But modern technology has lowered the barriers to what I'd call the lowest point they've ever been. Between that and the level of dissatisfaction with the established parties, there's a door thrown pretty wide open.
The system is slanted, but it's nowhere near impossible. Third parties have made serious bids in climates just like this, they usually just need a single unifying issue, and/or a popular central figure. The internet makes for icing on the cake.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
That would work if politics were about policy. As a matter of fact, however, there is an overwhelming consensus in the US in favour of, basically, socialism, except for the word 'socialism'. That is, if you ask people whether they favour smaller government, they'll say yes. And if you ask them whether this or that government program is important and should be funded by taxes... they'll say yes. In other words, they're in favour of socialism (or statism, if you prefer) as long as it's not referred to by that name.
The real issue, then, is not policy but status, in classic primate fashion: What groups shall be accorded high status and get all the bananas and sex? Viewed this way, the last half-century of politics merely reflects the struggle between the older East Coast WASP elites and the pushy nouveau-riche ones; the voter groups that support each elite are practically arbitrary. It could just as well have been the case that Midwestern farmers supported the Democrats and urban blacks supported Republicans; just switch cheers and change which party throws the occasional policy bone to what group.
Of course, when this gets too blatant, it's occasionally possible to have a reformist group come along and point out that, hey, this is supposed to be about policy. But having politics actually be about differing philosophies of government is a state of low entropy; it can't be maintained without continuous pushing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Chomsky is scum. Worse than scum. I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
Quite right. I see our current situation as more like admitted statists vs. closet statists.
QFT
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Let's cut to the reality and have a socialist party and a libertarian party. Statists vs individualists.
See, that's the problem. That may be how YOU view it, but that's not reality. Not as most people see it, anyways.
It sort of works if you let the hardcore libertarians define 'individualists,' because then the whole one to three percent of the population that fits that definition can all get together and have a ball and feel happy that they are not a pejorative definition that they alone apply ('statists') and continue to be mostly irrelevant.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are advocating anarchy, and you are a libertarian, so I did the math on who's blurbs you've been reading. I've never seen you do a lot of thinking on your own, unfortunately, though it would be wonderful if you actually did explicate this scenario for us and tell us what might come of it if it did happen, and why that would be positive, but I assumed you couldn't do that because you're a mouthpiece for slightly more original people. Please, do prove me wrong.
Please do prove yourself capable of abiding by the TOA, TIA.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
requesting name change to Samprany of Orincolo
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire.
To be fair, I wouldn't pee on Noam Chomsky if he were on fire. I mean, it wouldn't be my first impulse, at least.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I might run to get some sticks and some marshmallows.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
To answer the OP:
Whether this was written by a FOX news anchor or not really doesn't have anything to do with the actual validity of the data shown or the research done on the attitudes of the people towards Obama's Presidency. Obama’s sharp decline in popularity is actually quite significant because of how fast it has happened. Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
I wouldn’t say that all of his 10 you could probably throw out 5, 8 and 10 immediately and lump 1, 2 and 3 in the same category as each other and can view those as either causes or effects of 6 and 7. It is pretty telling that when both the events mentioned in 6 and 7 happened is when the president saw the sharpest decline in his approval ratings. Number 4 is not really something that can be tied to any particular president seeing as they all face this problem and despite all attempting to address the problem the debt still remains, and it is also unlikely that the projected trends of both the country’s poor GDP and debt rate will be what transpires over the next few dozen years. reasons are valid perceptions held by the American people but some certainly have impacted Obama’s presidency in a very powerful and very negative way.
All that being said Obama having low approval doesn’t necessarily mean that the republican party is increasing in popularity. In fact the republicans are still a few percentage points behind (44% compared to 46%) in approval polls even though the dems are the lowest they have been since 2006. Two years ago near all the elite intellectual and financial capital of the republican party either switched sides or picked up other party tags (Libertarian mostly).
I highly doubt the republican party is truly doomed but conservativeism in its current form certainly is. It is likely that in the next ten years or so you will see major changes in the republican party platform in an attempt to centralize itself and to re-absorb the libertarians and the right-leaning independents that they have lost over the years.
It still would not surprise me if the republicans grabbed one of the houses of congress but I think the republican resurgence under the tea-party movement will be short lived. In order to keep their jobs and their power the party needs to get younger (and smarter) and clinging onto their ideals of inaction and intolerance of different minded people (politically, religiously, race and sexual orientation) is definitely killing their party growth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
Approvals at this level in the first term are entirely normal. It has happened to, in recent history, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Ford.
Posted by GentleGiant (Member # 12377) on :
How can you disapprove of a president for " not being jingoist"
You WANT a jingoist??
Health reform, it is a scandal that the supposed greatest democracy in the world has no valid health care system for its poorest citizens.
The Gulf, yeah, but he is not alone. There are TWO big US oil companies who were partners with BP on that rig. I have heard no-one attacking them, yet both have refused to help BP with either stopping the leak, or cleaning up. If you hire a car and it explodes due to poor repairs and maintenance, who is at fault? The person driving it, or the company hiring it out that didnt keep it up to the required safety standards? BP didnt own that rig, they HIRED it.
I could go on, but I have to go to work and pay the extra taxes required to cover the US mortgage meltdown that caused the global credit crunch.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Every president (except Clinton) has ended up with low approval ratings, the difference is that it isn’t usually until the second term that one usually drops below 50%
Approvals at this level in the first term are entirely normal. It has happened to, in recent history, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Ford.
Yea, i suppose i kinda left a half-thought idea on the table there. I suppose the important thing about the low approval isnt that it hits a low mark as much as how long it stays there. Clinton and Reagan were below 50 in their frist term for a very short period of time. Ford and Carter hit those low numbers early and stayed there, which is why they did not get a second term.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Approval ratings have very little to do with the performance of presidents, and a lot to do with the performance of the economy. (Which, by the by, presidents are almost powerless to affect; don't believe the official propaganda. Economies of 14 trillion dollars, aggregating the activities of 300 million people, are just not very amenable to correction by one man, no matter what the prestige of his office.) Both Reagan and Clinton had recessions early in their first term, then sharp recoveries of GDP going back to trend - and thus their approval ratings dipped and then surged. Carter, however, was in a similar position to Obama: He inherited a recession, did his best to end it according to then-prevailing economic theory, and (either despite that or because of that) the economy didn't recover in time for his re-election. I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I met the Samprany of Orincolo once. He had an enormous hat.
Was it a fez? Fezzes are cool. . . .
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
If I had more time and the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics, I would read the post mentioned above about similarities to the Ancien Regime and have some fun with it. But alas, I do not.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
Like Sarah Palin.. I may be conservative but I hope there are enough smart conservatives out there that see she would be a disaster for both the party and the country.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
I'd pee on it, then beat it with a fiery stick laden with marshmallows.
Ah, good times.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: That's nothing compared to what I'd do if I had the inclination to become remotely involved in a conversation about modern politics.
I'd pee on it, then beat it with a fiery stick laden with marshmallows.
Ah, good times.
But then you'd ruin the marshmallows! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suspect Obama will also be a one-term president for such reasons.
Exactly. The bottom line is, good economy he gets re-elected. Bad economy, he loses unless his opponent is a complete hopeless case.
You need three factors.
1. A bad economy.
2. A ratings slump which survives past the transitional midterm period. What Obama's going through now is essentially similar to what happened to Reagan and Clinton, so to call it a 'stunning decline and political fall' is desperate use of hyperbole. Enjoyable, to say the least.
3. The G.O.P. has to advance a candidate who can beat him.
Any and all probability of toppling Obama in the next presidential election hinges on #3. All 'at present' analyses is 'the GOP has not yet shown a candidate in good standing with their primary system who would win against Obama in a presidential election.'
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think it is also a little ridiculous that there is so much outrage whenever President Obama takes a vacation, especially by the right.
Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr. took more vacation days than Obama in their first two years. The outrage that Obama is took vacation time during the oil spill is stupid. Bush stayed on his vacation after Katrina.
I agree that Michelle Obama could have stayed here in the US for vacation. Clinton made the choice to go camping and hiking instead of taking expensive vacations, which I respect him for. But it one trip! It isn't like she is going on vacation to another country once a month.
I'm pretty much fed up with both parties.
I think the republicans will pick up some seats in November, but I really don't think that they will have a good candidate that can run against Obama in 2012. You never know though. Obama wasn't well known in 2006, though I had heard of him and had seen his speech at the DNC in 2004.
Again though, I am still praying it won't be Palin...Anyone but her. I'd take Gingrich over her, and I don't really like him either.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans.
Oh come on, Blayne. Anyone who begins their "arguments" like this is utterly biased and was biased from the beginning.
People think Obama is out of touch with "ordinary" Americans because the "ordinary" American-- is apparently a truck driving, fast-food white guy with a high school education who makes jokes about Mexicans and Europeans 'cause they're different. Since when was ANY President representative of this? You don't want that; you want someone who is well educated.
This is just some guy's opinion, not a well-cited political consideration of Obama's career so far. It is all angling for the November elections. Because apparently Obama matters even when you're voting for Congress.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"People think Obama is out of touch with "ordinary" Americans because the "ordinary" American-- is apparently a truck driving, fast-food white guy with a high school education who makes jokes about Mexicans and Europeans 'cause they're different. Since when was ANY President representative of this? You don't want that; you want someone who is well educated."
Ummm Clinton?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Bill? He's a Rhodes Scholar with a degree from Yale.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jackson?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
lol
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Obama is one and done. The economy will only get worse. Both it and the Obama Presidency will be in shambles by 2012.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
For the amount of misinformation out there and the early election blitz by the Conservative Right I would say that Obama is holding up pretty well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's really going to be interesting to see what happens with Obama in the second half. Is this going to be a repeat of Clinton, where his numbers are in the tank following a huge Republican win in the midterms, but then he rallies back to win reelection?
I think a lot will depend on the economy, which is slowly, too slowly for many, getting better. If economic numbers jump in the next year, I think he'll probably have a lot to work with. Actually I think he has a lot to work with anyway, but it'll give the Republicans LESS to work with, let's say.
More and more I'm actually thinking I'd like Republicans to win the House and Senate. If Obama does win reelection, he'll probably take them both back anyway, and it'll give him a temporary chance to govern. I also hope that Democrats fiddle with the rules and make it so a filibuster takes 55 votes to break, and not 60. I'd like to either do away with the rule entirely, or make it a REAL filibuster of old, but I don't see that happening.
Maybe if this is a return of 1994, a Republican Congress and Democratic White House can actually get some work done again, or is that just too much to hope for?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:More and more I'm actually thinking I'd like Republicans to win the House and Senate.
I would have conceptually wanted that without the current obstructionist bent. Use of procedural filibuster and refusal to pass bills and nominations is already approaching a level so high that it's breaking congress and feeding power into the executive. If Congress becomes even more deadlocked due to obstructionism, the filibuster is doomed (in the medium to long term) and the executive gets more powerful still.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I figure if things are already intractably stopped in their tracks, it might be nice to watch Republicans attempt to govern for once. I'd love to see their FY2011 budget, the real one, not the BS one they put together for political purposes.
I guess I'm at the point where I've given up on constructive resolution to this problem, short of a Tom Clancy-like cataclysmic event that wipes out all of Congress and allows us to start from scratch. I might as well get my political bread and circuses.
Besides, I think things need to actually start breaking before we stop and fix them. I mean that literally. Bridges have to fall down, pipes need to burst, people need to die. Without that, or without one side taking utter and total control, I don't see any way out of this rabbit hole.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
The Republicans are toxic garbage. The Democrats are toxic garbage. Our political system is toxic garbage. The economy is worse.
Bill Clinton strengthened the Lower and Middle class.
Obama has strengthened the Banks and the Hedge Funds and turned a blind eye while the bad guys have strip mined the middle class.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I enjoy the various assorted abstract Capitalization of various Words since in general it seems to have fun comorbidity with other traits.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Obama could be doing better if he'd stick to his guns. I don't think, despite a lot of wishful, virtriolic rhetoric from some on the right, that he won "just" because he was "the anti-Bush" or "just" because he was black. I think a lot of the issues he ran on- pulling back from the extensive military campaigns in the Middle East, making sure everyone in the wealthiest damn country on Earth could see a doctor, broadening government transparency and accountability- really were things many of the people who elected him were hoping to see.
And then he got into office. He heard a lot of dissent, some from advisors inside, some from talking heads outside. He was told to be more pragmatic and less idealistic. He held onto ideas of bipartisan compromise as opponents of health care reform turned the "discussion" into a toxic sea of fiction and hyperbole. He turned away from closing Guantanamo and allowing photos of prisoner mistreatment to be released. He started making use of the obfuscatory tactics of his predecessor. He slowed down withdrawal from Iraq, and pushed some of that withdrawal back into Afghanistan.
His greatest strength remains his ability to speak clearly, with intelligence, grace, and wit. But rather than use that ability to defend and promote his positions, he's often allowed them to be battered by partisan rhetoric without making reply or compromised without getting any concessions or even any reasonable explanations of the counter-positions in return.
He is still a far better President than G.W. Bush, in as much as a trickle of water going through your basement is far better than having your whole house washed away by a flood. But he needs to find his spine and lead. The people who oppose him aren't going to change their minds because he tries to see things their way or because he makes a rational argument. Powers above, a significant number of those idiots still think he was born in Kenya. Regrettable as it may be, people are often more willing to follow a strong, forceful idiot than a weak, uncertain genius.
Posted by GentleGiant (Member # 12377) on :
You need Jack Ryan and a suicidal 747 jockey
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Regrettable as it may be, people are often more willing to follow a strong, forceful idiot than a weak, uncertain genius.
People are almost always going to follow the guy who's doing something instead of the guy standing around talking about it. W generally gave me the impression that things were happening. And for all the legislation he's managed to pass, Obama somehow doesn't.
I don't know if it's a personality thing or a confidence thing, but W just had some leadership quality that Obama lacks, in my opinion. Maybe part of it is that I generally agreed with W that the things he tried to do were worthwhile. They didn't always work out, but there was always a sense of forward momentum.
Now, with the healthcare fiasco, the economy, the jobs situation, even the BP spill, it's more a feeling of freefall. I honestly don't feel like anyone's at the wheel guiding us. Even if W took a wrong turn, I felt he was in the car with me. Maybe a bit reliant on his GPS as to how to get there, but at least with his destination firmly in mind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And I disagreed with every turn he took, just about. and ended up in a far worse section of town because of his "leadership".
Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess. The economy is HIS administrations messes compounded. Healthcare would have already been addressed except for the mistake HIS party made the last time it was brought up.
He was one of the worst Presidents we have eve3ry had, IMO. And I am hardly alone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The biggest difference so far as leadership goes is that Bush had a pliable opposition party to give him a blank check on what he wanted to do. It's EASY to be a leader when few of your decisions are seriously challenged.
Obama has been a leader, but he's been stymied at every turn by an opposition that is more interested in seeing him fail than they are at engaging any issue seriously.
The very structure of our government doesn't allow him to lead in the way that Bush did if the opposition party really, really wants to throw a wrench in the machine.
However...I do agree that while 75% of the time I actually appreciate his aloof nature on things, I think let far too many issues fall apart because he wasn't as hands on as he should have been. That's ironic too. Republicans howl that he's overstepping his bounds left and right (and in some cases, maybe he is), but legislatively, he's backed right off of Congress and let them handle issues themselves without much interference at all. What an awful idea that was. And Republicans who usually cry about him interfering in state business howled when he didn't nationalize the entire oil spill situation, then when he DID exact reparations from BP, they all cried that he was overstepping again.
The guy seriously can't win.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by GentleGiant: You need Jack Ryan and a suicidal 747 jockey
That's spooky.
I referenced this just yesterday to someone, and pretty much in the same context. Well, not so much the part about Jack Ryan being president, but, about Congress starting from scratch.
I was mostly kidding though. Mostly.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess.
See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Iraq's tougher. Personally, I suspect we'd have been looking at a bigger, nastier war if we hadn't acted. Leaving Saddam in power and the oil embargo in place was a little too Germany-post-WWI for my taste.
quote: The economy is HIS administrations messes compounded.
While I don't hold W blameless, I think the economy was the inevitable result of our poor decisions and lack of accountability for the last few decades. We knew when Enron, WorldCom, and the like collapsed that our big businesses weren't paying attention to what their CEOs were up to. Follow-up reports have shown that they still don't. And 15 years later, Congress still hasn't done anything about it.
We had every reason to think the banks had no idea what they were up to. We just charged ahead and demanded they expand their activities so more people could benefit from them.
I think either neither party wants to deal with the rot underlying modern business or both parties have something to gain from not addressing it. That to me looks more like systematic corruption than individual leadership.
quote: Healthcare would have already been addressed except for the mistake HIS party made the last time it was brought up.
Really? W is a terrible president because Clinton couldn't close the deal? Let's just say, I disagree with the caveat that I do think the GOP has gotten a little crazy on the healthcare front.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Has nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong, the actual prosecution of the war was horribly bungled. Independent analysis and ex-generals alike have noted several key points in the war when massive mistakes were made that only allowed the Taliban to grow stronger, get smarter, and to counterattack with deadlier attacks of their own. There was a point when they were basically beat, but then Bush totally lost focus, and they came back worse than before.
If he wasn't going to go to war seriously, he should have left it alone. I agreed that it was a worthwhile endeavor, but not the way it was done. For that, Bush has to take the blame. He was commander in chief when the war was started, and prosecuted for almost a decade.
quote:Iraq's tougher. Personally, I suspect we'd have been looking at a bigger, nastier war if we hadn't acted. Leaving Saddam in power and the oil embargo in place was a little too Germany-post-WWI for my taste.
The major difference of course being that defeating Iraq's military has, for America, historically been child's play. We usually end up killing more of our own guys due to friendly fire than they do of ours. What exactly is this bigger nastier war?
Again though, going in or not going in, that's one debate, (and I'm on the "don't go in" team, for the record), but the actual prosecution of the war was horribly bungled. Can anyone have possibly forgotten the statements made by Rumsfeld and Cheney that we'd be in and out in a couple of months in a war that will pay for itself from oil money? Every major decision we made for years only made the situation worse, like disbanding the military and police, which sent hundreds of thousands of trained, armed, and angry out-of-work soldiers into the streets, who were instantly gobbled up by militias that formed overnight. We had no idea what we were doing, and hundreds of thousands died while we figured it out through trial and error. And it's not like Iraq is a utopia now. It's six to five and pick 'em whether or not Iraq succeeds as a functioning state, or devolves into lawlessness again. And we have no idea what that successful state will even look like. Will they be a puppet of Iran? Will they descend into civil war with the Kurds? Will they enact even harsher laws promoting strict Islamic law than were had under the generally secular Saddam?
No idea. And that's the point. We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He's instinctively taken the wrong position on almost every issue and occasionally tries to retract. The American people are getting wise to him.
Even during the election he took Russia's side in the invasion of Georgia.
He instinctively supported Manuel Zelaya in Honduras...despite the fact that their supreme court ruled him out for trying to be the next Hugo Chavez.
He instinctively blamed the police and hoped a beer summit would undo it.
He supported the fraudulent elections in Iran.
He's opposed Israel every step of the way.
He supports the mosque in New York.
He passed a health care bill that the vast majority of citizens oppose.
He's going after Arizona for their immigration law that only mirrors federal laws, he will not enforce. A law that the majority of Americans support.
He's done. He is the first and hopefully only, post American president.
Americans want a commander and chief, not an apologizer and chief.
A "gaff" is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth. He's almost as gaff prone as Biden....thank God for that. American's are sick of the teleprompters and the least transparent executive branch....in decades.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:He's done. He is the first and hopefully only, post American president.
I've never heard this term, what does it mean to you?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Ok, we do agree there. I'm not sure we've had an answer since WWII, really, but that's an excuse not an explanation.
I think my biggest problem with America is how reactionary we tend to be. We go into these conflicts to stop something, not to do something. I'm a big believer that you have to be working towards something or you'll never get anything done. I would love to see someone step up - Petraeus maybe? - and actually outline what victory in a modern war should look like.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Post American...
He's above American....a man of the world. He was touted as the great uniter....a man of the world. (reminds me of the dos equis commercials). Willing to talk to terrorist organizations and rouge regimes...Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. He's sympathetic to our enemies and understands their grievances,....he's a grievance peddler from south side Chicago. He's wise enough to understand that the attacks of 911 were partially our fault. He's tasked NASA to improve relations with the Muslim world.
Post American.....above America. Name another presidential candidate that gave a campaign speech near the Berlin Wall. Name another president that won a Nobel Peace prize two months after entering office. Much of the world loves him... he apologizes for America.
When Iran and North Korea feared America, the world was a much safer place. Have they fueled up that reactor yet? How's the investigation going from that N. Korean Torpedo?
Yes, America has been arrogant in the world. America was the arrogant jock who stood in the way of high school bullies. Not anymore. We have a community organizer with antipathy for American history trying to talk to our enemies.
Is the world safer than it was 2 years ago?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess.
See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Under what pretense, though? I don't think "Regime Change," in and of itself, could sell the war.
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
malanthrop: I just wanted to know what you meant by it.
Are you really interested in discussing whether Obama is a "post-American" president as you have described it?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I do believe he is the first president to have allegiances outside of US interests. His upbringing, while well rounded in the worldy sense, is not America focused. He may very well be the first president to have held dual citizenship in multiple other nations. He does have experiences beyond America. He does have understanding of other nations beyond the normal US president. This can be good and bad. He's "post American"....he's a president that is not just an American...he held citizienship in other nations. Perhaps he is above it all due to his capacity to empathize with terrorists. His empathy seems only to make the world a more dangerous place.
Is this good or bad for the nation and the world?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Um... in which other nations do you think Obama has citizenship, mal?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Indonesia and England...via Kenya. He did go to Pakistan when no US passport holder was allowed to enter.
His father was Kenyan....he held British citizenship. His mother later married an Indonesian, where he lived and went to school.
Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"? He named his premature arrogant autobiography, "Dreams of my father".
His father and mother were avid communists. His father hated the British for what they did in Kenya. Not really a suprise, he sent the Churchill bust from the oval office, back to England after entering office.
Obama was British via his Kenyan father and Indonesian via his Indonesian step father.
Under what citizenship did he visit Pakistan, where American passport holders weren't allowed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Americans want a commander and chief, not an apologizer and chief.
Um... you know it's "in", right? Commander in Chief. Not "and".
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He's commander "and"....ask McChrystal.
He separates his military duties from his political aspirations.
Commander "in" chief talks to the generals fighting one of the longest wars in US history. Commanders and Chief,....play politics with war.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Indonesia and England...via Kenya. He did go to Pakistan when no US passport holder was allowed to enter.
His father was Kenyan....he held British citizenship. His mother later married an Indonesian, where he lived and went to school.
Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"? He named his premature arrogant autobiography, "Dreams of my father".
His father and mother were avid communists. His father hated the British for what they did in Kenya. Not really a suprise, he sent the Churchill bust from the oval office, back to England after entering office.
Obama was British via his Kenyan father and Indonesian via his Indonesian step father.
Under what citizenship did he visit Pakistan, where American passport holders weren't allowed.
I was four when I moved to Asia with my family. I was 21 when I finally moved back to the United States. I visited the US to see family once a year, and I have only lived in the US seven years now.
Is my citizenship and affection for the United States suspect?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"?
I'd just like to briefly note that this may be because he's spent an entire book answering that question. It would be like asking, "Hey, why does no one ask Rudy Giuliani which terrorist attack had the biggest effect on his worldview?"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No it isn't. Your experience would be different than most Americans. Unfortunately for you, most Americans want a president that is purely American. Our current president's history was ignored. Really....the birthers are ridiculed, but without them, Obama's history would be as vapid as he wants it to be. We elected a president with an unknown past. McCain was sued by the DNC for being born in Panama and he released his college records. We have a president that holds a true press conference once per year and has hid his college records.
Americans don't usually react well to his unscripted words (Joe the plumber) and might not like his college thesis or international financial aid.
Americans like to have American presidents....not one's that traveled to banned foreign nations with a different nation's passport. This president couldn't get my security clearance, if he wasn't president. When your own autobiography spells out your affinity for Marxist and socialists....you're screwed come security clearance time.
I had to produce a birth certificate and they investigated my junior high school friends. Palling around with weather underground founders and having an autobiography about communist friends, would undermine that clearance.
He would never be cleared, but for his position. He couldn't even be an average communication's systems technician in the US military. He wouldn't pass the security clearance requirements.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually he probably could, my college teacher had a contract job with the US military and NATO as a systems analyst and his mother was born in the Ukraine, sure they investigated it but he still got his clearance for the 8ish years he worked there until he went to a career as a teacher.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Ok, we do agree there. I'm not sure we've had an answer since WWII, really, but that's an excuse not an explanation.
I think my biggest problem with America is how reactionary we tend to be. We go into these conflicts to stop something, not to do something. I'm a big believer that you have to be working towards something or you'll never get anything done. I would love to see someone step up - Petraeus maybe? - and actually outline what victory in a modern war should look like.
That's not really his job. It's the job of the Commander-in-Chief to define victory. It's the job of the general to either achieve it, or to tell the CinC that he can't do it with the tools he has.
The problem was that Bush's ideas of victory were just regime change and exit. He had absolutely no idea what to do once it became obvious that his ideas were overly simplistic in the extreme.
Now that things are a million times more complicated, we have to ask ourselves even harder questions. Can victory in Afghanistan be anything less than a western style liberal democracy? Can we live with making some sort of peace with the Taliban that keeps hostile anti-Americans out? What does this mean for locals that supported us and for that matter, the plight of women in Afghanistan, since we've made it a point to make their equality and education a major plank of the war's aims? Turning to Iraq, is a stable, unified Iraq the only victory, or can victory involve an independent Kurdistan? Are we willing to risk our alliance with the Turks to support them?
Bush never asked, or at least, never satisfactorily answered any of these questions. Obama now has to answer ALL of them.
Victory looks like whatever we want it to look like, or maybe more appropriately, whatever we can stomach it looking like. We could move the goal posts and call it a win today, and come home tomorrow. A win is whatever we say it is. I believe that our capabilities are such that, almost regardless of our objectives, we have the capacity to effect a change that will meet them. The problem thus far has been that we're only halfheartedly supporting grandiose goals that require a great deal more from us than we're willing to invest. So either we increase our investment, or we reduce our goals. It comes down to a political and strategic calculus in the end.
Part of our fundamental problem with these wars has been a reluctance on Bush's part to even recognize that this calculus exists. For him, it was a black and white issue.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's the job of the Commander-in-Chief to define victory.
Should be. But since he might lose his job four years later for having done so, I kind of doubt we're going to see that. Our current string of presidents has been, in my opinion, pretty mediocre politicians. When was the last time we really had a leader willing to make the hard decisions?
And given the state of politics in the country, I don't think we're likely to get one anytime soon. I don't think he could even get elected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
mal:
quote:Unfortunately for you, most Americans want a president that is purely American.
I would say unfortunately for everybody, when it comes to putting the words "pure" and "American" together it's impossible to get a consensus on what that is mal. That's why so many people were frustrated and offended when Palin talked about "real America." That phrase doesn't have any concrete meaning, it's just another way of saying, "enough like me that I am comfortable."
Many of my friends growing up were Americans - I went to an American school. I never once considered myself anything but an American. I've probably spent more time studying American history and politics in school, and during my spare time than most voters.
The President of the United States is also Chief Diplomat. Foreign experience is irreplaceable in this world where Washington and Beijing today are closer than Boston and Philadelphia ever were in 1776. Our economy is a global proposition, and we need Presidents who among other things understand global economy and politics at an intermediate level. Somebody with cultural sensitivity enough to recognize that bowing is to the Japanese what hand shaking is to Americans. That nobody in Japan said, "That's funny he bowed so low, it was as if we were in charge!"
I don't agree with President Obama's policies all the time. I'm puzzled as to why Iran is being permitted to do what it's doing. There's a chance President Obama is privy to information that I do not have, that necessitates this course of action, but perhaps not. But I despise the idea that the United States is supposed to be the biggest bully in the yard, who keeps all the other bullies from doing the more egregiously evil things, but recognizes that boys will be boys.
I'm all for a strong nation, that can smack down anybody who tries to kill us. But I'm also all for a wise nation, where the way we handle ourselves on the stage is worthy of admiration and emulation. There's nothing admirable about stepping on toes and shoving people, saying, "You were in America's way!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When your own autobiography spells out your affinity for Marxist and socialists....you're screwed come security clearance time.
Just for clarity: are you saying that people who are openly socialist are denied security clearances? Really?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We've already surrendered. Our president spelled out to the world, an exit date. He gave advance notice for his surrender date. He's a loser.
No need to waste lives fighting Americans...they know when we're going to leave. Better to just wait. Iraq isn't going away....the turmoil there will be left to the next president....this one can claim victory for surrendering. If you're going to weed a garden, make sure you get the roots.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So how would you pay for staying in the war longer, and how many casualties are you willing to accept.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade)
[ August 30, 2010, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We've already surrendered. Our president spelled out to the world, an exit date. He gave advance notice for his surrender date. He's a loser.
I've never understood how people who are so "pro-American" are so willing to do the propaganda work for our enemies. This practice of "We'll take something that is a good thing, or at least can definitely be seen as a good thing, and declare it a victory for our enemies." seems bizarre to me. Some of them no one would have considered it a victory and others, yeah, maybe some of the terrorists would try to take credit for it, but I don't think that many people would take them seriously. But now, people, so called loyal Americans, are declaring victory for them.
Why are you needlessly giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Personally, I think the 'combat' brigade part of it is a bit of shell game with the re-labelling of brigades and increase in contractors.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Personally, I think the 'combat' brigade part of it is a bit of shell game with the re-labelling of brigades and increase in contractors.
I wouldn't say it's as empty and self serving as the Mission Accomplished thing, but it's definitely not any where near what it is being sold as.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Don't mind malanthrop...
That sort of post is not OK Rakeesh, don't disparage other posters in that manner.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, serious question, JanitorBlade: at what point does malanthrop get in any sort of official difficulty on constant lying, misstatements, and a refusal to stick to the subject when things turn against him? Is that just something the community gets to put up with? I think it's an important question when discussing malanthrop, because it's a given he won't honestly discuss things on his own.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Is there anything in the TOS about refusing to answer criticisms? If you wish to accuse him of intentionally lying or posting false information I'm amenable to reviewing it. But I can't punish him for having weak arguments that he does not back up if that is what you are complaining about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, he won't honestly discuss things even with help. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't the TOS have a line about treating other posters with respect?
Clogging up the boards with his personal manifesto and refusing to engage other posters in honest debate sounds like a pretty clear sign of disrespect. Not all forms of insult come directly or use overtly disparaging language.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From my perspective, mal is pretty clearly a troll who has displayed no willingness to deal with posters on this board with respect or in good faith. Is it inappropriate to note this?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
MrSquicky: No, but that's not what Rakeesh said. I'm sorry you can't see the post as I edited it. I debate whether to leave problem posts up so people know why I did something, but it could just as easily lead to somebody getting annoyed it remains readable and doing something unfortunate.
-----
If you feel mal isn't discussing in good faith don't speak with him. If you can link me to egregious examples of him being disrespectful to other posters i.e insulting them, railing on them, lying about them, etc, I can work with that. Saying that somebody ignoring posts is disrespectful and therefore worthy of disciplinary action seems a bit too far to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Even during the election he took Russia's side in the invasion of Georgia.
No, he didn't. "No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks."
He instinctively supported Manuel Zelaya in Honduras...despite the fact that their supreme court ruled him out for trying to be the next Hugo Chavez.
He never openly supported Zelaya. What he supported was the democratic election that put him in office. Not the same thing. Even the people behind the coup that ousted Zelaya admitted later they should not have done so militarily. Obama and the state dept. brokered a negotiation to return Zelaya to office just in time for another election, where the odds were heavy he would not be elected. Zelaya is currently publicly criticizing Obama for supporting his opponent.
He instinctively blamed the police and hoped a beer summit would undo it.
A valid point; Obama commented on the arrest without really knowing anything about it, a stupid move for any politician. The beer summit was intended to be a friendly way to soothe tempers and present a "regular guy" image, with decidedly mixed results.
(Hey, how come Obama drinks beer if he's supposed to be a Muslim? Or is he just a bad Muslim?)
He supported the fraudulent elections in Iran.
Nope. He expressed concerns over them, but said it would be counterproductive for the U.S. to "meddle." And this was true. As stated by the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Richard G. Lugar, "For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power."
He's opposed Israel every step of the way.
He's opposed several statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the platform of Likud and the continuing occupation of Gaza and the West Bank without negotiation, yes. Does that mean he opposes Israel? Or just what they're trying to do now?
He supports the mosque in New York.
Even he went wishy washy on this one. The most he said was that he supports their right to build there. Since I also support their right, and unlike Obama fully endorse the Park51 center, I have no problem with this.
He passed a health care bill that the vast majority of citizens oppose.
I love this statement, because it includes in that majority the percentage of Americans who opposed it because it didn't go far enough. Seriously, I don't think you get to claim those numbers.
He's going after Arizona for their immigration law that only mirrors federal laws, he will not enforce. A law that the majority of Americans support.
It goes farther than federal laws, which is what the lawsuit is about in the first place. Personally, I'd like to see polls about illegal immigration taken from 2 years ago before the lies of increased immigration-based crime (debunked several ways) flooded the right-wing talking point airwaves.
You want to reduce illegal immigration? Streamline the naturalization process, create stricter laws against businesses that hire illegals and then actually prosecute them over and over until they get the idea, and make marijuana legal. Boom, illegal immigration drops to a trickle and you can monitor the border with three guys and a dog.
Now if you want complaints about Obama, I would agree with these:
He has not closed down Guantanamo Bay as promised.
Taking too long on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Caved too many times on important aspects of the health care bill as well as many other bills the Republicans insisted on wrecking.
Doesn't do enough press conferences, I agree there.
Continued many of the worst Bush/Cheney security excesses.
He suffers from two main problems, I think. First; he wants to return the government to where the legislative body does the legislating, away from the last eight years of "Bush wants it, we'll sign it" attitudes. A balanced government, the way our Civics textbooks also said it was supposed to work. But right now we need a strong leader to help overcome the last strong leader, and to push past the obstructions heaped in the way by opponents who don't want the United States to succeed nearly as much as they want him to lose. Which is a problem because, secondly, he's far more a negotiator, even a statesman, than a leader.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: MrSquicky: No, but that's not what Rakeesh said. I'm sorry you can't see the post as I edited it. I debate whether to leave problem posts up so people know why I did something, but it could just as easily lead to somebody getting annoyed it remains readable and doing something unfortunate.
-----
If you feel mal isn't discussing in good faith don't speak with him. If you can link me to egregious examples of him being disrespectful to other posters i.e insulting them, railing on them, lying about them, etc, I can work with that. Saying that somebody ignoring posts is disrespectful and therefore worthy of disciplinary action seems a bit too far to me.
Oh no, I agree that mal doesn't do anything that calls for official disciplinary action and that often the people who respond to him seem to lack the self control to not cross clear boundaries and end up both needing official correction themselves and making it so mal is more rather than less likely to post here. The impression I got from what I read here was incorrect.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What I'd really like to see, that I never expect to in my lifetime?
When a president takes office and the opposing party throws its weight into cooperating with his/her goals to make sure their voice is included. I'd rather not see any bill with solely Dem or Repub input (which means, basically, lobbyist-written). I want some of both viewpoints, and a few more, in my legislation.
But when the opposing party refuses to be a part of it (or plans any "cooperation" in such a way as to be both crippling to the bill and politically dangerous for anyone to object to said crippling) our country is the poorer for it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
mal's posting style is easy to understand and consistent.
He posts something inflammatory to prove a point.
Someone easily disputes it, with references.
He either ignores the response entirely, or responds to a different part of the response, or whips in another inflammatory statement to prove a different point while never, ever, acknowledging that his original one was debunked.
Taking on one of his arguments is like chasing rainbows. The original one fades long before you make any headway and you eventually get too tired to continue. I don't think it's anywhere near requiring disciplinary action, people just need to know what to expect if they jump into the fray. I do it anyway now and then because a) I'm bored, b) it's good to keep track of what FOX is spreading these days and c) I don't like leaving inaccurate talking points lying around where someone impressionable might step on them and get infected.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with CT. I'm glad you post here, Chris. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: mal's posting style is easy to understand and consistent.
He posts something inflammatory to prove a point.
Someone easily disputes it, with references.
He either ignores the response entirely, or responds to a different part of the response, or whips in another inflammatory statement to prove a different point while never, ever, acknowledging that his original one was debunked.
Taking on one of his arguments is like chasing rainbows. The original one fades long before you make any headway and you eventually get too tired to continue. I don't think it's anywhere near requiring disciplinary action, people just need to know what to expect if they jump into the fray. I do it anyway now and then because a) I'm bored, b) it's good to keep track of what FOX is spreading these days and c) I don't like leaving inaccurate talking points lying around where someone impressionable might step on them and get infected.
Us conservatives have been schooled by liberals. It is funny to hear a liberal complain about, "talking points". It is funny to watch liberals react to conservative political rallies. Only libs held rallies before we had a president that announced, "A fundamental transformation of America" Before now, regular Americans went to work, they didn't attend rallies. Regular Americans, (the majority) are waking up and don't want a "fundamental transformation of America."
It took a lot to get conservatives to rise up and take a day off of work to go to a rally. Libs have always had the unions with paid protesters and the unemployed "social justice" crowd.
Be afraid, be very afraid. Thanks for the lesson on "community organizing". Conservatives have been griping about "talking points" for decades. Conservatives are "organizing".....good luck....thanks for the lesson....we outnumber you.
[ August 30, 2010, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
DOUBLE RAINBOW!!!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Malanthrop, are you ever going to return to the topic of purely capitalistic America? Or are you abandoning that now that points weren't going your way? Do we not have to 'be afraid' of you actually defending your point on that topic?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Note: not one of my refutations of his points on the second page addressed.
When the people in power are the ones abusing the system, often the only recourse for those without a voice is to rally together and hope it gets attention. That's sort of the point of the rally, strike, protest, what-have-you in the first place.
And, as I've said elsewhere, both Dems and Repubs are known for whipping up their constituents with fear tactics. Repubs are just so much better at it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You want a better explanation of why and Obama has lost control of his initiatives and drive forward and where he failed to control his own narrative? Check out Drew Western's What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November, an excellent and unforgiving look at just what Obama did wrong and why so many center and left voters are unhappy even if they can't quite explain why.
quote:- The logical follow-up to a bill designed to pull the economy out of a ditch is to make such a bill unnecessary in the future, by attacking Wall Street for having thrown us into crisis and passing strong legislation to rein in the excesses that created the economic meltdown. This would have sealed the American people's loyalty to the new president and Congress. (Heading into November, this is, in fact, the most popular piece of legislation the Democrats have passed, but it took them nearly a year and a half to get there, and by then, neither the president nor the Democratic Congress enjoyed the good will of the average American.) Instead, the same banks that received bailouts are foreclosing in record rates on the homeowners whose payroll taxes funded the bailouts but don't seem to get the same kind of attention to their needs from the federal government. Adding insult to injury, the banks double and triple credit card interest rates to as high as 30 percent, including on people's existing credit card debt -- while continuing to receive no-interest loans from the federal government. - Despite talk of accountability, no one is fired (except one auto executive), virtually no one is prosecuted or even investigated as far as anyone knows, and banks that received bailouts flaunt record bonuses.
quote:But instead of using any of the well-tested narratives that were highly effective during the campaign or devising any new ones of its own, the administration decides to try to "sell" health care without a narrative. (I wrote about this in detail a year ago and will not repeat that history here, except in telegraphic form.) The president refuses to state where he stands on any of the substantive debates about health reform for a year, such as whether we should have a "public option" (a term so ill-conceived it's hard to believe the public supported it anyway; imagine the support it might have received if it had been called instead "the one health care plan the health insurance companies don't get to control"). Instead, the White House uses phrases such as "bending the cost curve" while conservatives flood the airwaves with evocative phrases such as "government takeover," "a bureaucrat between you and your doctor," and "death panels."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Before now, regular Americans went to work, they didn't attend rallies.
Out of interest, do you think "regular Americans" went to the original civil rights rallies that Glenn Beck is seeking to reclaim for regular Americans like himself?
You don't have to answer that until you've answered Rakeesh's questions, of course.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That was a very good article Chris. Of course, I would say that, as it's what I've been saying for a while here. There's one thing I have to take issue with though.
The author concludes with a list of courageous stands and says:
quote:That's what Democrats stand for. It's time they said it.
I think that's wishful thinking. The Democrats are maybe not as beholden to big business as the Republicans, but it's near too close to tell. Part of the reason that the financial and medical insurance reforms were so anemic and pro-big industry is because some of the most prominent Democrats involved in them are deep in the pockets of the industries they were trying to regulate.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The article seems to be summed up by two points: 1) Republicans and conservatives are all racists 2) Blame Bush It reads liket the typical Racist Bush Republicans Conservatives are 100% responsible for ruining everything and Obama would have been much better off by simply talking more.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Where was race mentioned in that article? Where?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What is that public mood? It can be characterized by a single phrase -- populist anger -- and it cuts across partisan lines. On the right, it is alloyed with racial anxiety and prejudice.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually the government/Wall Street problems were endemic to politics since well before Clinton. The bubble rose under his presidency and he and his Congress didn't do anything to contain it, preferring to enjoy the temporary prosperity it brought. When it crashed under Bush, his tactics of systematically deregulating everything (and posting lobbyists from industries to regulatory boards of those same industries) helped it snowball faster.
Obama would have been better off taking command, instead of (naively?) hoping that post-Bush a civilized ruling body would emerge. He tends to wait out the outraged puffery until reason shines through, but I think he severely underestimated the power of propaganda and the American public.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And that one brief mention -- a simple acknowledgment of just one of the elements involved in part of the populist movement -- is enough to write off that entire article and every reasoned point in it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Not only that, it was sufficient to merit one of the two bullet points that summarize the entire article.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:2) Blame Bush
To be fair, George W. Bush was an absolutely terrible President and the policy he, along with the Republican Congress, pursued of deregulation of the financial industry is one of the major - and arguably the largest - causes of our current financial situation.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We can start with his headline
quote:The GOP Sets the Country on a Course of Economic Destruction
The GOP did not set the Country on a course of economic destruction. The author knows that it is a much more complicated issue than "GOP destroys Country" but the sound bite makes it more palatable to his leftist rant. I think you realize as well that blaming the GOP solely for the economic downturn is wrong. That's just the first part of the first headline...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And that one brief mention -- a simple acknowledgment of just one of the elements involved in part of the populist movement -- is enough to write off that entire article and every reasoned point in it?
That one brief false mention which dismisses a large portion of the country...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Total tangent: What is the history and origin of the term "leftist" in American political conversation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, The point of the essay is that this is the PR story that the Democrats could have, and the author believes should have, used in order to advance their agenda and party.
Not surprisingly, the reality is much more complicated than what he's saying they should have crafted their 15 second message into. Considering the GOP has embraced outright falsehood for it seems like the majority of their talking points, I'm not convinced that not conveying the whole story is wrong in this context.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Not sure of the accuracy but wiki says
quote:The terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization.[3]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MS, so his point is that the Democrats should have embraced outright falsehood for the majority of his talking points...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't mean left-wing and right-wing. I meant, when did it got shortened (assuming here) to leftist and rightist, plus when it got popular.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, what he said is extremely over-exaggerated, but the basic idea is true, unlike, say "Death Panels". The Republicans seriously screwed the country and their actions were lead causes of the current economic difficulties. It is a failure of President Obama and the Democratic Congress that they haven't established this for the public and, as a result, they are going to own the poor economy come November.
edit: And the long term effect that the Republican push to deregulate everything is going to pop up again pretty much as soon as they get back into power, which is going to lead to more economic, environmental, and other disasters is also in large part on the Democrats shoulders.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The Republicans seriously screwed the country and their actions were lead causes of the current economic difficulties
Can you provide non biased links to prove that Republicans were the lead cause of the economic difficulties? Even wiki does not agree with your assesment.
quote: It is a failure of President Obama and the Democratic Congress that they haven't established this for the public and, as a result, they are going to own the poor economy come November.
They haven't established it because they know Democrats played a part in the downturn, as well as many many others
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't say the lead cause. I said lead causes.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Provide proof of your claim that the Republicans actions were lead causes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ummm...nah. I'm okay with leaving it as I said it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Provide proof of your claim that the Republicans actions were lead causes.
Would you like to go on record claiming that there were no Republican actions that were among the lead causes of the financial downturn?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Provide proof of your claim that the Republicans actions were lead causes.
Seriously? I still call myself a Republican (Florida's closed primary) and I'd agree that they were the biggest probelm. They controlled Congress during the 90s when most of our bubble issues started. They did nothing to rein in anything - even after legitimate disasters like Enron. They've been ignorning the nation's biggest problems for a good 15 years now.
I just haven't seen anything from the Dems that convinces me they can do any better. "Didn't break it but can't fix it" is not enough to switch parties for, in my opinion.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Would you like to go on record claiming that there were no Republican actions that were among the lead causes of the financial downturn?
I never made that claim, I am making the claim that there are many different causes that led up the downturn and experts do not agree on any single cause or that the event was caused by Republicans. Democrats had a large hand in the failure as well, remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Freddie and Fannie didn't get into subrime until after the major banks were already knee-deep in it. They came to Congress (some time in the 2000s) begging to be deregulated to be able to "compete".
There was definitely a housing bubble without them, but the GSEs were not just innocent bystanders, and a huge proportion of the monetary loss associated with the mortgage collapse is associated with them. When they started securitizing subprime mortgages, they grew the market by insane proportions and largely took it over (starting in 2004 -- note that the number of subprime mortgages went off the charts then).
What's more, they were offering an implicit government guarantee.
Don't take me wrong, I largely place the blame on Congress for authorizing their actions -- once given the power, it is hardly surprising they used it. But giving them that power was a mistake that cost the US somewhere between hundreds of billions and a trillion dollars that would likely not have been lost, otherwise. That there would still have been numerous other losses does not mean a substantial chunk of the crisis is not from that root.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Would you like to go on record claiming that there were no Republican actions that were among the lead causes of the financial downturn?
I never made that claim, I am making the claim that there are many different causes that led up the downturn and experts do not agree on any single cause or that the event was caused by Republicans.
And you'll note, when you read carefully, that post isn't claiming a single cause.
quote:Democrats had a large hand in the failure as well, remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
suuuure do
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There was definitely a housing bubble without them, but the GSEs were not just innocent bystanders, and a huge proportion of the monetary loss associated with the mortgage collapse is associated with them. When they started securitizing subprime mortgages, they grew the market by insane proportions and largely took it over (starting in 2004 -- note that the number of subprime mortgages went off the charts then).
What's more, they were offering an implicit government guarantee.
Don't take me wrong, I largely place the blame on Congress for authorizing their actions -- once given the power, it is hardly surprising they used it. But giving them that power was a mistake that cost the US somewhere between hundreds of billions and a trillion dollars that would likely not have been lost, otherwise. That there would still have been numerous other losses does not mean a substantial chunk of the crisis is not from that root.
I agree that they were a problem, but I don't think they were necessary for the economic turmoil we are in... If they had ben frozen out by Congress, the other private banks would have filled much of the gap. Also, as mentioned in the linked article, I sympathize with the idea that focusing so much on the GSEs allows one to ignore that their issues stemmed from them being de-regulated, which many of their critics either would, or had, recommend be done as a general rule on government organizations.
Blaming someone for doing what you would want them to do seems tacky at best.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I can tell, taking the GSEs out would have brought the crisis on faster and this would have affected the magnitude of the crash, but the people who were screwing around were going to push as far as they could get away with. There was an insatiable appetite for mortgage base securities. Fannie and Freddie added greatly to the pool and allowed these whole guaranteed to fail situation to go on longer than it probably otherwise would have been able to, but, had they not done so, other people would have covered a lot of the same areas in filling that insatiable demand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just read this, btw, after reading the article
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The article seems to be summed up by two points: 1) Republicans and conservatives are all racists 2) Blame Bush It reads liket the typical Racist Bush Republicans Conservatives are 100% responsible for ruining everything and Obama would have been much better off by simply talking more.
The article can, in fact, not be summed up by these points, and your issues with reading comprehension continue.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Malanthrop, are you ever going to return to the topic of purely capitalistic America? Or are you abandoning that now that points weren't going your way? Do we not have to 'be afraid' of you actually defending your point on that topic?
Shall I answer this for the third time?
I made the mistake of using an abosolute term. No nation has ever been "purely capitalistic". The US was the most "pure capitalistic" society in the world, in it's founding. In a world economy, (a world capitalistic economy), American jobs are lost to nations with lower corporate tax rates and lower labor costs. You hear a lot about US auto maker jobs being lost....reality, there are more American workers building cars than at any time in our past. Toyota has factories in Alabama and most the GM plants didn't move to other countries,...they moved from Michigan to the south. States that are more business friendly. Detroit is the canary in the coal mine for what is to come,....if progressive's get their way. Maybe it's unfair that Alabama has lower taxes to build cars. To be fair, lets get rid of state's rights. Of course, the USSR failed for the same reasons, when their people were waiting in line for toilet paper and drove Yugos, if lucky.
We'll never learn our lesson. History is hard to argue with. Socialists erase history in schools in order to convince the next generation to double down. Socialism fails, the US government is one of the oldest in the world. Our capitalistic and greedy society is older than the rest.
Name for me, any nation that has a government as old as ours?
I've only listed major nations. American capitalism is the elder statesman in the world and those nations can thank us for radio, tv's and the internet....not to mention, toilet paper....another American invention.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, of course, the squirrels.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And, of course, the squirrels.
Name a major nation in the world that has a longer standing governmental system. Name any nation that has contributed more to the advancement of man-kind in the last 200 years. Name one that exceeds this "rooky" nation in inventions. Name one that produces more food. Where's the bread basket of the world? It isn't the "bread basket" due to climate or land area....American innovation and greed invented the combine. Much of the world's population are wielding scythes for the umpteinth generation. If you live in India, you're lucky to inherit a steet vendor cart. In America, a hot dog stand owning father can end up with wall street children
[ September 04, 2010, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
My head hurts.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Name one that produces more food. Where's the bread basket of the world?
quote:Agriculture Statistics > Production > Wheat (most recent) by country # 1 China: 86,490,000 # 2 India: 65,100,000 # 3 United States: 63,810,000
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... those nations can thank us for radio, tv's and the internet....not to mention, toilet paper....another American invention.
quote:Although paper had been known as a wrapping and padding material in China since the 2nd century BC,[1] the first documented use of toilet paper in human history dates back to the 6th century AD, in early medieval China.[2] In 589 AD the scholar-official Yan Zhitui (531–591) wrote about the use of toilet paper ... During the early 14th century (Yuan Dynasty) it was recorded that in modern-day Zhejiang province alone there was an annual manufacturing of toilet paper amounting in ten million packages of 1,000 to 10,000 sheets of toilet paper each
quote:A graduate of Oxford University, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing while at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, in 1989.
quote:Scottish inventor John Logie Baird demonstrated the transmission of moving silhouette images in London in 1925, and of moving, monochromatic images in 1926. Baird's scanning disk produced an image of 30 lines resolution, just enough to discern a human face, from a double spiral of lenses.[4] This demonstration by Baird is generally agreed to be the world's first true demonstration of television, albeit a mechanical form of television no longer in use.
If we use your apparent goalposts which are government continuity, unbroken by occupation or revolution (whatever that is supposed to mean in the larger scheme of things), the American government would seem to date from 1776.
However, the last British revolution was in 1688 with the constitutional monarchy uninterrupted since then.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It isn't surprising for China to have "more" agricultural production....especially from a society that grows their own food.
I didn't argue that the US (the bread basket) had the most, it just exceeds it's needs....efficiency. I spent many years driving swathers in pea fields,....28% viable crop harvest,....was great. Of course, the Chinese can exceed 90%...paying people to pick the peas, one pod at a time. We have one person drive a harvester, they have dozens pick them. Our harvester driver makes a better living.
Obama can stimulate the economy by paying for "paid for by stimulus funds" road signs. The government can employ half the people to dig holes and half to fill holes. I was raised with a large garden and I ate dear meat....just as most of China does.
The "world's bread basket"...isn't just wheat. There are potatoes and rice as well. Believe me, as a previous US Navy Sailor, there's quite the black market for US rice in Japan.
Of course, they have a protectionist economy where US Rice is taxed to oblivion and you'll pay through the nose for a slice of watermelon or a few grahams of beef.
American military make a lot of money selling US goods to Japanese citizens on the black market.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Believe me, as a previous US Navy Sailor, there's quite the black market for US rice in Japan.
The 'black market for US rice in Japan' is actually phenomenally negligable, to what extent it exists at all. Not that I would have believed you in the first place, since you never seem to have any idea what you are talking about and are frequently dead wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Name one that produces more food.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I didn't argue that the US (the bread basket) had the most
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... it just exceeds it's needs....efficiency.
Edit to add:
quote:Agriculture Statistics > Grains > Wheat production (per capita) (most recent) by country ... # 1 Australia: 1,194.62 thousand metric tons per # 2 Kazakhstan: 790.201 thousand metric tons per # 3 Canada: 670.629 thousand metric tons per # 4 Argentina: 341.444 thousand metric tons per # 5 Turkey: 246.91 thousand metric tons per # 6 Russia: 237.066 thousand metric tons per # 7 United States: 215.024 thousand metric tons per
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Believe me, as a previous US Navy Sailor, there's quite the black market for US rice in Japan.
The 'black market for US rice in Japan' is actually phenomenally negligable, to what extent it exists at all. Not that I would have believed you in the first place, since you never seem to have any idea what you are talking about and are frequently dead wrong.
That's why my Japanese roommate in college about shit himself to see the spread on my families table.
Try to buy a pound of beef in Japan....watermelon is a delicacy....they make them in cubes.
See if you can afford meat in most of the Asian world...much of the world for that matter. If I'm arguing with people from other countries, check the prices of food in the US to yours.
Of course, plantains, beans and rice,....the food of the slave is always cheap.
I bought 5 shirts in Bahrain for $100. The material cost %80. I asked,....a good worker could make 2 shirts a day.....how much did he/she make? I asked that question...they make room and board. These "TCN's" are happy to make room and board in a nation like Qatar or Bahrain...they starve where they come from. Not so unlike the illegal immigrants in the US who do the "jobs Amercians are unwilling to do".....for less than minimum wage.
Of course, the compassionate democrats defend this form of sweat-shop slavery by suing AZ and Joe Arpaio.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Absolutely nothing you just typed in any way addresses the issue of the 'black market' for United States rice. In the future, if you're going to "respond" to me with something that has nothing to do with what you first quoted, don't even bother quoting. It'll just confuse people even more.
And, with you, that's really saying something.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think we're all still waiting for Mal's explanation of how America invented the loo-roll. Maybe the US just invented it better. Maybe he meant ultra-soft, moistened and quilted.
Although now I think of it, those might not have been invented in the US either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While mal is wrong about us producing the most food, we are the most efficient producers of food (with the possible exceptions of some small countries that don't produce much food at all). We have fewer workers producing far more food per worker.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, I don't doubt that eventually Mal could* move and mangle his goalposts from most food to most efficient and then from most efficient to most efficient above X million number of workers, but I like to see that process.
* That said, I'm not even sure if Mal would prefer to find an appropriate source or just move onto the next random buckshot of random points
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I vote for random buckshot! High in insoluble fiber, lots o' iron.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Once the rest of the world has learned from the US....they make our products and sell them at WalMart.....to the US.
Economic advancement isn't so different than military advancement.
Where was the toaster oven invented? The light bulb? Radio? TV? Nuclear Bombs? Flight?
The rest of the world should worry when the US decides to declassify something like the stealth bomber. Once it's outsourced,....we've got something better.
We've got something better. China.....keep making cheap toasters.
From the tube to the IC chip....from electricity to nuclear power....US invented.
These inventions were due to the greedy capitalistic innovators sprouted from this fee nation, while the rest of the world was (is) subject to government, nobles or sharia law.
[ September 06, 2010, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And I'm sure those historical accomplishments will carry us as leaders of innovation into the indefinite future.
We are falling behind in development, innovation, and production. I don't think there is a good chance that the U.S. will be the sole leading nation in the next 50 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nothing we can do about that. Too many other countries have numbers and time on their side. But that's fine. America needs to give up its love affair with American exceptionalism. Looks like we might have to do it the hard way.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And I'm sure those historical accomplishments will carry us as leaders of innovation into the indefinite future.
We are falling behind in development, innovation, and production. I don't think there is a good chance that the U.S. will be the sole leading nation in the next 50 years.
Past accomplishments can't carry you forward. I spent months in Cairo...it's sad that that nation clings to their glory from three thousand years ago. The height of their civilization is now covered with water bottle trash.
You're right...the Tea Party is arising among people who understand history. The Tea Party knows,...this nation, especially under Obama is headed the wrong way.
Private schools still teach actual history.
Name one nation that has an older governmental system...name one that has contributed as much to the advancement of mankind?
Compared to the US, France is in junior high and Greece is an elementary school flunky.
If America fails, it's because we began to emulate Europe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're right...the Tea Party is arising among people who understand history.
Like how America is a Christian nation founded on Christian law!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Name one nation that has an older governmental system...
Repost
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Quick thought.
If we use your apparent goalposts which are government continuity, unbroken by occupation or revolution (whatever that is supposed to mean in the larger scheme of things), the American government would seem to date from 1776.
However, the last British revolution was in 1688 with the constitutional monarchy uninterrupted since then.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: While mal is wrong about us producing the most food, we are the most efficient producers of food (with the possible exceptions of some small countries that don't produce much food at all). We have fewer workers producing far more food per worker.
kind of a petroleum-heavy system, though.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Definitely petroleum heavy.
Most the right is screaming, "Drill Baby Drill"....
I say, let's wait for them to run out of oil.
The price will only go up,...use their resources first......we're capitalists.....our oil, in the ground, is a great investement.
Soon, we won't only be the "bread basket", we'll be the "fuel basket". Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If America fails, it's because we began to emulate Europe.
You've said this before. Any student of history knows that while America did away with things like kings and titles, it still founded its system of government by borrowing ideas from European nations, and philosophers.
If you asked any of the founding fathers if we could ever look to Europe for ideas down the road, they would have looked at you like you were illiterate.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You're right...the Tea Party is arising among people who understand history.
Like how America is a Christian nation founded on Christian law!
You'd rather live in a Christian nation than a muslim one.
Christians teach, turn the other cheek....(Post Edited by Janitor Blade, don't disparage Islam Mal.)
Of course, I believe following others is human nature. The royals of the old world have been replaced by the people who are famous for being famous. American policians have handed down congressional seats to succeeding generations longer than royals could hope for, in a monarchy. People want royals, people want to be lead. If not politically,...you have Paris Hilton.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You're right...the Tea Party is arising among people who understand history.
Like how America is a Christian nation founded on Christian law!
You'd rather live in a Christian nation than a muslim one.
That's incredibly presumptuous, and it's also irrelevant, since I live in the United States, a secular nation.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"You'd rather live in a Christian nation than a muslim one."
Christian nations only became more tolerant than Muslim ones when they began to stop primarily believing in Christianity; putting the ideas of the Enlightenment first instead.
Before then, it was the Muslim nations that were more tolerant (e.g. the Spanish evicted Muslims and Jews from the Spanish peninsula, but the Ottomans never evicted the Christians from the Balkan peninsula).
quote:Christians teach, turn the other cheek....
And occasionally burn you at the stake like they did with Jeanne D'arc or flay you alive like they did with Hypatia or put you in rape camps like the Bosnian Serbs did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Most religious do tend to have people who don't practice what the religion teaches.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Most religious do tend to have people who don't practice what the religion teaches.
When the people who don't "practice what the religion teaches" are the heads of the church for hundreds of years, dismissing it this way seems pretty weaselly to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:We are falling behind in development, innovation, and production. I don't think there is a good chance that the U.S. will be the sole leading nation in the next 50 years.
By the measures of development, innovation, and production, Japan's been at about our level for a couple decades now (and that's with some crippling economic problems). Hasn't seemed to have been a major problem. Actually, it has been a source of considerable economic growth for us.
What makes us a superpower is having a very good economy (the best in the world, overall, but not that different from most other first world economies,, except in the details) and having military might. Sole superpower status will only go away when a military from a similarly strong economy can challenge us successfully (there are no signs of significant economic decline relative to other nations for the next few decades, at least, so that option is out).
Interestingly, all the places with similar economic status don't seem to want much military, and all the places that want a lot of military are still nowhere near us in terms of overall economy (note: total size of the economy is not a useful measure beyond a certain minimum; that's just a property of having a lot of people. Per capita measures are what matter here). Let me know when China passes the poorer countries in eastern europe by that economic yardstick.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually fugu your wrong, the USA has been declining economically in relative terms since the 1980's and is actually fairly noticible.
Think about it, is the US as strong militarily, economically, and politically on all fronts now as it was in 1950? The answer is "no".
The fact of the US's decline has been readily apparant to anyone willing to comb through the economic data, as Paul Kennedy has done so in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: The United States The Problem of Number One In Relative Decline"
Every structural problem with the US he pointed out then have actually become worse now, mounting debt, a sluggish economy, uncompetitive in trade with the NICs, mounting political pressures across the globe with less and less resources to meet them, spiraling costs of the military with less to show for it etc.
quote:Interestingly, all the places with similar economic status don't seem to want much military,
There aren't that many countries with a large enough economies to significantly invest in the military, with the US putting some 5-6% of GDP into it any other country would relatively speaking need to invest 10 to 20% to match it, of which only Japan, the EU as a whole and China have economies anywhere close.
quote:and all the places that want a lot of military
How are we defining 'want' every country has their own specific national defense needs and considerations, simply willing to purchase arms in the last 5-10 years or planning to purchase arms in the next 5-10 isn't indicitative of an 'arms buildup' especially with nations that say like Russia are significantly behind even in small arms procurements, whose Strategic deterrent has decayed and whose SSNs and boomers need significant upgrading and replacements... Etc. It becomes difficult to be critical of a nation that to all appearances is simply bringing their forces to the same readiness as anyone else.
And China well, they've been significantly underfunding their military for 40 years now, the "Four Modernizations" placed the military as the lowest priority in order to focus on economic modernization, its current increases are a result of their nation's economy naturally pulling its military along the modernization path that the economy itself went.
And still needs to be stated that in absolute terms the PLA of today is actually smaller then it was 20 years ago.
Finally, actually your kinda wrong again Per capita measures of economic performance are not good indicators of a nation being able to have a sustainably large military, what you need to look at is PPP for that of which China does significantly better.
To convert economic strength into military strength you need to look at the State's ability to in a dirigist fashion direct national resources effectively towards that goal, that the average person in China is still poor is irrelevent if the economic contributions of over a billion Chinese can be effectively directed towards the goals of the State.
Conscription to be able to access skilled and trained personell, a vibrant scientific community able to develop the tools of national defense without over relying on imports, a huge manufacturing and resource materials base, a huge trading volume that provides China with the hard currency in which to be able to do significant arms procurements over the long term, a transportation network for the quick movement and deployment of troops and resources, shipyards for the construction and laying down of warships, etc etc etc.
By all indicators as long as China's economic growth continues without catastrophic interruptions there's no doubt that the era of the Pax Americana is soon over 'officially' de jure, it's already over de facto, the US's economic base simply can't let it do the things it could've done even 20 years ago.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Compared to the US, France is in junior high and Greece is an elementary school flunky.
If America fails, it's because we began to emulate Europe.
Umm....Didn't Greece invent the Democracy? I guess I didn't know that we have been failing for over 200 years. Totally Obama's fault.
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
Oh goody. I was wondering when Blayne would be spooging all over.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Where was the toaster oven invented? The light bulb? Radio? TV? Nuclear Bombs? Flight?
The toaster oven is American, although toasting things is definitely not.
The principle behind the light bulb was originated by Joseph W. Swan, a UK inventor, and he demonstrated a working glass lamp in 1878, but vacuum pumps weren't good enough at the time to reliably make them. Edison devised the first practical light bulb using a filament with a high electrical resistance, but he did so by building on Swan's idea.
Radio? Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell predicted the existence of radio waves in 1860; an American dentist Mahlon Loomis, an American dentist, successfully demonstrated "wireless telegraphy"; the German physicist Heinrich Rudolph Hertz demonstrated that rapid variations of electric current could be projected into space in the form of radio waves similar to those of light and heat in 1886; Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi sent and received his first radio signal in Italy in 1895 and sent the first wireless signal across the English Channel in 1899 and was credited for decades as the inventor of radio; Nikola Tesla was the first person to patent radio technology.
Nuclear bombs? They were developed jointly by the U.S., Britain and Canada in response to news that the Germans were already working on theirs.
Flight? I assume you mean airplanes; balloons, zeppelins and gliders have been around for hundreds of years. What the Wright Brothers demonstrated was powered, manned flight, which was built on the discoveries of many other people.
I don't wish to demean the works of Americans, and all of these items were breakthroughs borne of genius and perseverance, but your initial post implied that Americans whomped them up from whole cloth and sheer Americanness and it just ain't so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne, I'm not going to bother responding to the beginning of your post, because most of it is just you reading things that feed your existing fantasies and then taking them as truth. I will, however, respond to some later parts.
quote:Think about it, is the US as strong militarily, economically, and politically on all fronts now as it was in 1950? The answer is "no".
Let us see. Our standard of living is much, much higher than it was in the 1950s, along with pretty much every indicator of economic strength, so I'm going to say we're stronger economically. Our military, while smaller in absolute terms due to having fewer people we need to match against, severely outmatches everyone else's military, so I'm going to say we're not weaker in any meaningful sense militarily. Politically? Well, there are no Soviet bloc countries to be unable to influence, so our influence extends quite a bit further in many ways that it did in the 50s. We've lost some influence due to a particularly boneheaded administration, but that's happened before, so I'm not too worried. Plus, a lot of our "political" strength in the 50s was really economic: every country in Europe owed us huge sums of money.
quote:There aren't that many countries with a large enough economies to significantly invest in the military, with the US putting some 5-6% of GDP into it any other country would relatively speaking need to invest 10 to 20% to match it, of which only Japan, the EU as a whole and China have economies anywhere close.
You seem to have grasped the concept. Remember, I'm giving the reasons we are a superpower. Being a small country is a good reason one cannot be a superpower.
quote:How are we defining 'want' every country has their own specific national defense needs and considerations, and then a lot of irrelevant stuff that seems to think I was somehow attacking China
I said it pretty clearly: "want a lot". A lot is the level of want I was talking about. At the very least, enough to extend military influence globally (since that is sort of a prerequisite for a superpower).
quote:Finally, actually your kinda wrong again Per capita measures of economic performance are not good indicators of a nation being able to have a sustainably large military, what you need to look at is PPP for that of which China does significantly better.
PPP is better for China because of land and food. Since land and food are much cheaper in China, the basket of goods used to estimate PPP for the average Chinese person shows how the exchange rate undervalues their economy.
Modern military technology, however, is not cheaper in China. PPP is a useless comparison for the purposes of military calculations.
Also, while exchange rate-based comparisons are not true relative measures of economic situations, they do give fairly accurate rankings. In other words, use PPP all you want, but China's still not passed the poorer countries in eastern Europe for the economic measures that matter for being a superpower. (Oh, and nothing I said specified I wasn't talking about PPP-based measures instead of exchange-rate based measures, though you seem to have assumed that. Or misunderstood what "per capita" means -- you can measure PPP per capita perfectly fine).
People in China, while accelerating greatly, with a few of them (compared to the rest) achieving high standards of living, are on the whole very poor compared to the "first world". It will take a very long time to overcome that, though China is doing an admirable job.
This is all an aside, of course. You have agreed China's military isn't especially large, and seem to be asserting they have no desire to make it large. That makes them not a superpower, and not a future superpower. That was the entire point of my post: none of the candidate places people put forward as replacing the US as a global superpower seem to be interested in it. That isn't too surprising: being a superpower is complicated and expensive.
quote:By all indicators as long as China's economic growth continues without catastrophic interruptions there's no doubt that the era of the Pax Americana is soon over 'officially' de jure, it's already over de facto, the US's economic base simply can't let it do the things it could've done even 20 years ago.
Really? List the things we could've one 20 years ago we couldn't do today. I'd be happy to show how they'd all fit within the modern budget.
As for being "de facto" over, don't make me laugh. The economic downturn recently made quite clear that when the going gets tough, faith in the strength of the US economy is still very strong. At least, the decision makers in Beijing clearly have a lot of such faith (no matter what they say in speeches): they're still making billion dollar bets that America's economic future is bright.
And take note of your use of the qualifier "without catastrophic interruptions". Please name one major economy that never has catastrophic interruptions.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Come back to me when you've actually read the book fugu as I'm not in the mood to transcribe the whole chapter just because you feel like staying ignorant.
You completely fail to understand the definition behind relative decline, it's completely irrelevant that in absolute terms the US is a whole order of magnitude stronger now then it was in 1950, what matters is that relative to the economic and military strength of the emerging superpowers and power blocs the US's strength is nolonger anywhere nearly as in a strong as a position as it was 50 years ago, this is historical fact.
relative vs absolute and your making the simplistic mistake of conflating the two.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:You completely fail to understand the definition behind relative decline, it's completely irrelevant that in absolute terms the US is a whole order of magnitude stronger now then it was in 1950, what matters is that relative to the economic and military strength of the emerging superpowers and power blocs the US's strength is nolonger anywhere nearly as in a strong as a position as it was 50 years ago, this is historical fact.
Yes, considering a devastating war that destroyed most of the then-first world other than the US, when many parts of the world were still industrializing, the US is not in quite as good a place as it was relative to that time period. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the world hasn't had another industrial revolution.
I thought it unnecessary to state extremely obvious things such as that.
Again, I'm making a very simple argument that you seem to be failing to read: being a global superpower requires a very strong economy and a very strong military (see the sketch of a definition I gave in my last post). There is no country that is on track for attaining both of those positions. Even if more countries are on the top of the economic heap with us, we will still be the only country on the top of the economic and military heaps.
Also, the idea that someone else being better off makes us worse off is a fallacy. As I pointed out, Japan being competitive with us economically turned out to be great for our economic situation, not bad. China becoming stronger economically is good for the US.
[ September 07, 2010, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote: Most religious do tend to have people who don't practice what the religion teaches.
When the people who don't "practice what the religion teaches" are the heads of the church for hundreds of years, dismissing it this way seems pretty weaselly to me.
Most religions also tend to have churches that, at least during periods of history, don't practice what the religion teaches.
Of course... my perspective on this is as a guy who believes in a God that came down in the flesh and rebuked religious leaders for not following their religion correctly.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)