Obama on Trump

[esmith]

Who would be your ideal President?

A combination of Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, and Regan. However, there are parts of some that I have a problem with. If you mean someone that actually exist; I haven't made my determination on which Republican at this time I would support. Since the one I would have liked to see has dropped out of the race....Gov Rick Perry..

Wait a minute. How in the world can you blame Obama for the same things that Reagan did that were even far worse? Such as the Iran-Contra scandal whereas he even broke the law that he had signed into law? or saying that trees cause the most air pollution. or,... never mind... how could I forget that the Church of Fox has fully deified him.

Getting a little off track in the above discussion aren't you. Question was asked who would be my ideal President and I answered. Then you jumped in with a totally non-related rant and blamed FNC. WOW.

 

[BSM1]

I mean things like how Reagan helped to flood American streets with cocaine and heroin, funded and supported terrorism and propped up Osama Bin Laden, helped to create the Taliban, armed Iran, and armed the Contra, and how under George "Dubya" Bush the threats of an impeding attack - an attack that was ultimately carried out - went ignored and how he lied to the nation about the risk that Iraq and Sadam posed, and subsequently abused the military by sending people over their to fight and die just to chase after ghosts.

I know you didn't mean to leave out Bill Clinton who was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and passed...twice.

 

[metis]

Getting a little off track in the above discussion aren't you. Question was asked who would be my ideal President and I answered. Then you jumped in with a totally non-related rant and blamed FNC. WOW.

When people respond to a post here at RF, they often elaborate a bit more than just a direct response, and that does include a great many of your own responses.

BTW, my response was hardly a "rant" since it was not even a full sentence long, so you actually might consider looking up what that word "rant" means and implies.

But I do have to give you credit in trying to deflect the simple fact that your are being so inconsistent by blaming Obama for doing what Reagan did far worse. Nice try though.

 

[metis]

Oh, btw esmith, if you want to see "rants", go through your many posts about Obama and Hillary. I don't ever recall seeing one good thing you have ever written about either. And before you can say it, I have written some good things about Reagan and "W", although I will admit that they're few and far between.

 

[gsa]

I know you didn't mean to leave out Bill Clinton who was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and passed...twice.

I am not sure about the other time, but one such "opportunity" Clinton spoke of involved killing 300 civilians.

I mean, President Obama could eradicate the Islamic State today. He just has to ignore the Geneva Conventions and modern standards of civilization. Kind of like Islamic State does.

 

[YmirGF]

Oh, btw esmith, if you want to see "rants", go through your many posts about Obama and Hillary. I don't ever recall seeing one good thing you have ever written about either. And before you can say it, I have written some good things about Reagan and "W", although I will admit that they're few and far between.

I do tend to agree with this, metis, but am sorely hard pressed to think of anything outside of gay marriage rules that Obama can lay claim to that is a good thing. I can't point to a single accomplishment of Hill Hill's, for example, other to amass a small fortune while working in public office... but I guess that is something.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do tend to agree with this, metis, but am sorely hard pressed to think of anything outside of gay marriage rules that Obama can lay claim to that is a good thing. I can't point to a single accomplishment of Hill Hill's, for example, other to amass a small fortune while working in public office... but I guess that is something.

This is interesting....there really is nothing either good or bad which Hillary actually owns.
She's sort'a coasting into the presidency on skids greased by her party.
As for Obama, I praise his not invading any new countries.
(His gay marriage stance is mere political evolution....remember that he opposed it.)

 

[YmirGF]

As for Obama, I praise his not invading any new countries.

I guess Libya and Syria are just diversions, eh? War on the cheap?

 

[metis]

I do tend to agree with this, metis, but am sorely hard pressed to think of anything outside of gay marriage rules that Obama can lay claim to that is a good thing. I can't point to a single accomplishment of Hill Hill's, for example, other to amass a small fortune while working in public office... but I guess that is something.

I think the ACA is a good thing in that it at least is going in the right direction (I would have preferred a good single-payer system, however). I know a woman whose life was saved, for example, because she was able to get the medication for her cancer that she had been on but lost when her husband's insurance was canceled when he lost his job. The stimulus package helped the recovery, as well as his working with Bernanke to help get us out of the economic mess we were in. He saved G.M. and Chrysler, both of which are doing fine today and keeping many thousands of people employed. He has helped us to not get too over-involved in non-ending wars, which was a terrible set of mistakes made by the last administration. Etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess Libya and Syria are just diversions, eh? War on the cheap?

They're Invasion-Lite....not in the league of Iraqistan or Afghanistan....or Iran (Hillary's frequent target).

 

[YmirGF]

I think the ACA is a good thing in that it at least is going in the right direction (I would have preferred a good single-payer system, however). I know a woman whose life was saved, for example, because she was able to get the medication for her cancer that she had been on but lost when her husband's insurance was canceled when he lost his job. The stimulus package helped the recovery, as well as his working with Bernanke to help get us out of the economic mess we were in. He saved G.M. and Chrysler, both of which are doing fine today and keeping many thousands of people employed. He has helped us to not get too over-involved in non-ending wars, which was a terrible set of mistakes made by the last administration. Etc.

I tend to discredit him getting kudo's for dealing with the economic mess handed to him. My view is that anyone in his position, based on the advice available, would have done much the same things. Quantitative easing, otoh, may actually turn out to be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[esmith]

I think the ACA is a good thing in that it at least is going in the right direction (I would have preferred a good single-payer system, however). I know a woman whose life was saved, for example, because she was able to get the medication for her cancer that she had been on but lost when her husband's insurance was canceled when he lost his job. The stimulus package helped the recovery, as well as his working with Bernanke to help get us out of the economic mess we were in. He saved G.M. and Chrysler, both of which are doing fine today and keeping many thousands of people employed. He has helped us to not get too over-involved in non-ending wars, which was a terrible set of mistakes made by the last administration. Etc.

Rewriting history again or is it that you have just been drinking too much cool-aid. It was not the Obama that bailed out the auto-industry in was your arch enemy G.W. Bush.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...s-george-w-bush-who-bailed-out-the-automakers

No the ACA is going in the wrong direction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...2eeea2-ea03-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/11/30/will-there-be-an-obamacare-bailout-of-insurers/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-laws-strains-show-1446423498
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ealth-plan-premiums-more-affordable/74640604/
w.cnbc.com/2015/11/02/obamacare-prices-increase-for-those-who-dont-get-subsidies.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Obama, in his mind, does not see terrorism as a threat to the world and to the US in particular.

He has stated, numerous times, it is a threat, and it is factually objective that the media has over-hyped the dangers of terrorism in America. Like it or not, chances are far greater you'll be gunned down by an non-terrorist American than a terrorist of any organization, domestic or international.

Over 60% of the American public thinks he doesn't have a clue what to do.

And far more than that reject the theory of evolution via natural selection. The American public, as a whole, is not an accurate gauge of what is going on.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tend to discredit him getting kudo's for dealing with the economic mess handed to him. My view is that anyone in his position, based on the advice available, would have done much the same things. Quantitative easing, otoh, may actually turn out to be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm less kind.
I say both he & Bush completely mishandled the depression,
actually prolonging it in many ways....
- Tax increases to finance bailing out lenders who were non-critical to economic recovery.
- Too little too late for industrial companies, who were critical to recovery.
- No help for underwater homeowners other than foregoing income tax on interest & principal lost by lenders.
- Refusing to let Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac borrowers renegotiate their loans.
- Pressing lenders to foreclose upon commercial borrowers, & then taxing waived principal & interest for those who refinance.
- Tax policy which disincentivizes energy upgrades (Short lived lighting & HVAC assets are non-deductable.)

 

[metis]

I tend to discredit him getting kudo's for dealing with the economic mess handed to him. My view is that anyone in his position, based on the advice available, would have done much the same things. Quantitative easing, otoh, may actually turn out to be an unmitigated disaster.

But if you remember correctly, most of the Republicans in Congress voted against saving the banks even though they were warned by Paulson and Bernanke, both Republicans btw, that this could end us up in another depression.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if you remember correctly, most of the Republicans in Congress voted against saving the banks even though they were warned by Paulson and Bernanke, both Republicans btw, that this could end us up in another depression.

The Republicans were responsible for once?
I didn't remember this. Good for you, pointing it out!

It's one thing for people to say bank bail-outs avoided a depression,
but it's another to present a cogent argument for this. I'm skeptical.
Have you seen one you could link?

While I'm no fan of bail-outs, I can various forms of assistance for.....
- AIG (to honor insurance commitments)
- Manufacturers (with a deep supply chain, with strategic security value)
- Real estate owners (in the form of allowing them to renegotiate loans with lenders, without onerous tax consequences)

 

[metis]

Rewriting history again or is it that you have just been drinking too much cool-aid. It was not the Obama that bailed out the auto-industry in was your arch enemy G.W. Bush.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...s-george-w-bush-who-bailed-out-the-automakers

No the ACA is going in the wrong direction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...2eeea2-ea03-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/11/30/will-there-be-an-obamacare-bailout-of-insurers/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-laws-strains-show-1446423498
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ealth-plan-premiums-more-affordable/74640604/
w.cnbc.com/2015/11/02/obamacare-prices-increase-for-those-who-dont-get-subsidies.html

What Bush did was to just to put enough into keeping them afloat until Obama took over whereas his administration could decide what to do. Since I live here and watched very closely what both Bush and Obama did with this matter, I caught pretty much continuous coverage both on C-Span and our local coverage. Most of the Republicans in Congress opposed the "bailout", btw, even though the CBO said that it would actually cost th government more if they didn't help them recover.

Secondly, it's a shame that you think so little of the 17 million Americans who now have health care but didn't before. The Republicans had plenty of opportunity when Bush was president but did nothing except to pass Medicare Plan D, which they threw onto the deficit. Instead of working with the Democrats to work out the kinks, the Republicans in Congress instead chose to vote 50 times to eliminate it.

Thirdly, Bush was not my "arch enemy" at all, so your pathetic stereotyping of people, including myself, just continues. Here we tell young children not to do this, but you at your age simply seem to have never learned that most basic lesson. I always had mixed feelings about Bush, and there were some aspects I liked about him even though I never voted for him. But he was a disaster as president in terms of what happened economically and getting us into two never-ending wars.

 

[metis]

The Republicans were responsible for once?
I didn't remember this. Good for you, pointing it out!

It's one thing for people to say bank bail-outs avoided a depression,
but it's another to present a cogent argument for this. I'm skeptical.
Have you seen one you could link?

While I'm no fan of bail-outs, I can various forms of assistance for.....
- AIG (to honor insurance commitments)
- Manufacturers (with a deep supply chain, with strategic security value)
- Real estate owners (in the form of allowing them to renegotiate loans with lenders, without onerous tax consequences)

Both Stiglitz and Krugman covered it in their books on the GR, plus also Heilmann and Halperin in "Game Change".

BTW, had GM and Chrysler both been allowed to go under, your house and mine would probably be worth about $1.95 on a good day.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both Stiglitz and Krugman covered it in their books on the GR, plus also Heilmann and Halperin in "Game Change".

BTW, had GM and Chrysler both been allowed to go under, your house and mine would probably be worth about $1.95 on a good day.

Living in relatively immune Ann Arbor, I wouldn't worry.
(State tax money, out of state students, & non-locality of our economy insulate us.)
But I've no interesting in reading entire books on the subject,
& I've found Krugman to be particularly lacking in reason.
Have you an explanation of your own?
(I've covered why the banks didn't need bailing in many posts.
And why it made more sense for AIG & manufacturers.)

 

[metis]

Living in relatively immune Ann Arbor, I wouldn't worry.
(State tax money, out of state students, & non-locality of our economy insulate us.)
But I've no interesting in reading entire books on the subject,
& I've found Krugman to be particularly lacking in reason.
Have you an explanation of your own?
(I've covered why the banks didn't need bailing in many posts.
And why it made more sense for AIG & manufacturers.)

I gotta be brief. Krugman won a Nobel Prize as did Stiglitz, although not for this, but I certainly would not claim them to be infallible. I can't believe you said he was "lacking in reason".

Our banking system is linked in so many different ways to banks, lending institutions, etc. through the country and the world. In 2007, 70% of the commercial loans was through the shadow-banking system that was largely unregulated. The estimate was that four of the five largest banks were in danger of default, and if that had been allowed to go under, the snowball effect would then kick in and begin to shut down one bank and business after another after another...

Now, can you imagine the panic that would have set in that would have been far worse than it was in 2009? And what do people do when panic sets in? Well, we know what they do-- they stop spending. Then what happens? I don't recall which economist said it, but he said that the effect could have been worse than during the Great Depression since we had a higher percentage of our GDP involved in credit. IOW, it was like a house-of-cards that could have easily been a far worse catastrophe.