Obama presidency a failure in every way to the Right Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Matt Mateo, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 11:53 am
President Obama truly has an administration that has failed...
...to live up to every far rightwing fringe paranoid fantasy.
Admit it, fringe conservatives, you wanted Obama and America to fail. Your delusional conspiracy theories over the last 3 years have been absurd - everything from calling him a radical Christian morphing to a secret Muslim, from being a fascist who was secretly a socialist, from being a Kenyen, who coincidentally offered proof of his American birth the day he had Bin Laden killed.
Admit it. Just like the weirdos claimed, you really wanted Obama to confiscate all guns (more guns now than ever - fail! ) destroy capitalism ( rising stock market highest in years - fail! ), you wanted him to raise taxes to record highs (they are lower - fail! Web Link ), and you thought his Detroit bailout would guarantee the destruction of the American auto industry (saves 3 million jobs and saves industry - sorry Mitt - fail!).
That wasn't all... You told us Obama would surrender to terrorists (Obama gets bin Ladin - fail!), stuff conservatives into FEMA concentration camps (glen beck 2009 fantasy - fail! ), create death panels (sorry, Sarah - fail! Web Link) and impose Sharia law on all Americans (the Obama's go to church - fail! Web Link).
The right wing fringe and their conspiracy theories add up to one thing on their part - an epic fail.
President Obama inherited an economic disaster: job losses of 750,000 for consecutive months and a $1.3 trillion deficit.
We are digging out - 23 months of private sector job growth creating 3.5 million jobs Web Link , a new budget reducing $4 trillion off the deficit, surging stock markets and the highest domestic oil production in 8 years.
We have a long way to go, but we are on the right path.
Posted by Kerry, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm
People who put their money in a bank savings account are making about 0.3% on average. Inflation is about 2.9%, This means that the purchasing power of average people is deteriorating. Most of these folks think in terms of gasoline prices, and food prices (and they are correct, in the narrow sense) however, the fundamental issue is that the FED, willing to help Obama, is keeping interest rates historically low.
There is no free lunch, and when the chickens come home to roost, it will make Jimmmy Carter look like a fiscal conservative.
We have already passed the tipping point, and are now dropping off the cliff. Obama is a disaster.
Posted by social conservatives, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 13000 today. Even the one percenters are happy. The economy is looking much brighter now (for everyone) than when Bush was President. That's why the Republican candidates are ignoring the economy and sticking to their traditional social issues like bashing women, bashing minorities, bashing the poor, bashing non-Protestant religions, and bashing foreign countries.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Obama's administration has been a failure in reversing the policies of the Republicans .. and some policies of their own, Democrats, that have caused and aggravated the many problems and challenges we face … mostly because of Republican obstructionism though … so there is little point in taking much the Republicans have to say seriously.
Since the only alternative to the disingenuous, opaque elitist policies of the Republicans, even though President Obama's policies have not been able to gain traction and bring about change, there is no other alternative to going back to the job-killing, health-care-killing- economy-killing, environment-killing .01% policies of the Republicans.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:24 am
I will choose the one who is the most fiscally and national security conservative.
Any wall we put up against turning ever more into Greece is a good one, brick by brick.
5 trillion in new debt. Longest over-8% unemployment since the Depression. Deepest and longest drop in housing prices and sales. Most lost retirement, ever. Fewest people paying any Federal Taxes, ever. 4 years running of > 1 trillion deficit spending. Highest, longest gas prices, ever. Dependency on Middle East oil highest, ever. Tax revenue down since 2006 from fewer "rich" and middle class paying. Most food stamp recipients, ever. Fewest percent of working adults since 1982.
Dow up? Who cares? Big companies are in bed, called "cronyism", with DC now, more than ever. An economy is more than just one number of one group of companies.
Not just Obama, but the entire leftist Democrat "dreams' have made a nightmare of the future of this country for our kids.Unfortunately, Obama did not fail..he implemented every dream he and his father had, and here we are.
Posted by Kerry, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 22, 2012 at 8:55 am
Jimmy Carter allowed stagflation to dominate the country. He brought in Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed, but he refused to support him publicly. Reagan kept Volcker and gave him public support. Volcker raised the federal funds rate and the prime rate went to over 20%...and this broke the back of inflation. From that point, there was a very robust recovery.
Obama is doing just the opposite. We are headed for a double dipper of huge proportions.
Posted by Big Spenders, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Feb 22, 2012 at 9:06 am
The statements made above, without any links or background, boggle the mind.
* "Deepest and longest drop in housing prices and sales. " Yes, longest, started under Bush and his Republican Recession (™) .
* 5 trillion in debt - yes, started with the Bush deficit of 1.3 trillion when he left office. Obama's new budget cuts $4 trillion. Any thinking person who has seen the negative effect of austerity measures in Europe knows cutting budgets in bad economic times is a failed policy. It's about creating jobs, which add revenue, which allows the budget to be balanced. Bush was handed a surplus and left a $1.3 trillion deficit.
* Jobs, unemployed - have the posters even bothered to look at the month to month job growth under Bush and Obama previously posted? Web Link
One notes they studiously ignore making comments on that chart.
* "Highest, longest gas prices, ever. " Obama has the highest domestic oil production in the last 8 years. Gas prices are not predicated on a disproved "drill, baby drill" policy, but predicated on an international oil price which oil companies keep jacked up to overvalue their stock price based on their reserves.
* "Dependency on Middle East oil highest, ever." Then why are we net exporters now? "One big story of 2011 was the United States switched from being a net importer to a net exporter of petroleum products."
* Hooo boy, boy howdy, here's a fun one: "Most lost retirement, ever." with "Dow up? Who cares?" What on earth are you smoking??? I keep a portion of my 401k in the market, even at my advanced age. Where's yours, under the mattress? I'm thinking the rest of us are pretty thrilled, those of us who can see past our nose.
In short, a true capitalist loves Obama's improving economy, the numbers prove it.
* "An economy is more than just one number of one group of companies." Dow at 13000 not good enough for your 401k? Then look at the Nasdaq, or the Wilshire 5000. How many thousands in that "one group of companies"?
* "Tax revenue down since 2006" Then repeal the Bush tax cuts and/or the Obama cuts. I've seen Perspective asked in other threads: "when have federal taxes on the rich been significantly less than under Obama?" 80 years ago?
"I will choose the one who is the most fiscally and national security conservative."
You ATTEMPT to do that, but how many times have you FAILED miserably to do so by guessing wrong? My guess is you've voted twice for Bush - he had 9/11 on his watch, two wars that lasted longer than the time it took to defeat Hitler, failed to get Bin Ladin, etc..
Fiscally, Bush doubled the national debt, so you failed there in a big way also.
Fiscally conservative voting criteria? Then you picked correctly if you voted for Clinton, who balanced the budget and left a surplus for Bush to squander.
You DID vote for our most fiscally conservative president ever, Bill Clinton, didn't you? Oh my, you failed in your criteria again, didn't you?
Then you have a bad track record. Name the last president to leave a budget surplus. Kinda hard to come up with a GOP name for that in living memory, isn't it.
Two years of private sector job growth, creating 3.5 million jobs, digging us out of the mess from Bush and his Republican Recession (™)
Ain't it wonderful to see our country climbing back???
Posted by Big Spenders, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Feb 22, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Clinton left Bush a far more than adequate military, as evidenced by history. He also left with a balanced budget, a surplus in fact, something the far right cannot stomach because it's proven that republicans haven't balanced a budget. Ever.
We beat Iraq's army in a couple weeks, an army that was touted as something like the 6th strongest in the world at the time.
We lost what, maybe a hundred fifty troops in defeating 375,000?
Took a whopping 11 days?
Pre-war estimates: "In the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the following Iraq War, the Army consisted of 375,000 troops, organized into 5 corps. In all, there were 11 infantry divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 3 armored divisions. The Republican Guard consisted of between 50,000 and 60,000 troops (although some sources indicate a strength of up to 80,000)."
375,000 active troops would put into about 10th place today, behind Myanmar and ahead of France.
Seems the Clinton strategy worked well, defeating a large standing army while fighting another land war simultaneously. Too bad Bush for brains didn't listen to his generals and go in with appropriate size forces, tried to do it on the cheap while funneling billions to private contractors.
"Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation." Rumsfeld was the worst thing that happened to the brave men and women of our military since, well, Bush himself.
Of course, Walter would be correct in saying the Peace Dividend was wasted by GW Bush, in that he spent a couple trillion borrowed from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Iran among others, on a really flimsy excuse to invade Iraq and enrich Rummy's contactor buddies.
Thanks Walter, for using historical fact to highlight that the Democratic party is the true fiscal conservative party, as well as the true party of American national security.
Keep trying to rewrite history though Walter, it's what you do best.....
Posted by Jen Carlo, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Feb 24, 2012 at 10:25 am
"Keep blathering on about how bad any of the Repubs are."
Blather is what Republicans do when out of power.
When in power, the Republicans spend far worse than the democrat party. All fact.
Reagan tripled the debt, Bush 1 raised it by another third, Clinton turned it around by balancing the budget, Bush II doubled the debt and left us with the worst economy in a century.
So Big Spender is correct: if Perspective is voting as a "fiscal conservative" she's been voting wrong for years. The GOP is using her, lying to her and she still falls for it. Sad. Must be very frustrating when in a rare moment, she opens her eyes and looks at historical fact.
Just like the evangelicals who want big government in our bedrooms. The GOP has been using them for years, and not much has changed. We still have birth control and choice. The GOP had the white house and both houses until 2006 and did nothing. Once they lose the white house, they get the House to vote a dozen times on abortion - big deal - they did nothing when they could have. All a show for the sheeple.
The GOP is masterful at using the sheep that support them.
Now that the GOP is out of power they're suddenly fiscal conservatives. What a crock of you-know-what.
Santorum's plan raises the debt. Romney's plan raises the debt. Newt's plan raises the debt. Ron Paul's plan raises the debt.
No one talks about that.
The way back to a balanced budget is jobs. Jobs are the key to getting out of this economy. Jobs are the key to revenue. Cut spending back to the 90's.
Obama isn't what a lot have hoped for, but he has turned around the job picture. While the GOP is talking about birth control.
It's not even close.
A vote for any of the four GOP candidates is a return to the Bush policies and the Bush economy.
Not even close to a difficult decision.
We need to continue the rebuilding of our economy.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2012 at 9:47 am
Jen: Compare the "raising the debt" to "raising the GDP" of each candidate and Obama.
When our debt was 50% of GDP we conservatives were screaming. When our deficit spending was 10% of GDP we conservatives were screaming. When a family makes $100,000 and is already in debt for 50,000 and is borrowing $20,000 every year, that family is obviously heading for bankruptcy and we conservatives scream "live within your means".
Our debt now, rounded out and without all those confusing zeros, is like
$15,000 on someone who makes $15,000/year..and is borrowing another 1,500/year every year to "live" with no hope of ever making more than they are making.
Connect the dots. Our GDP has flattened, our debt is skyrocketing. How do we fix it? Raise our GDP, lower our spending. Simple math.
Now, go look at the plans again, and tell me the Democrat plan, Obama's plan ( which is STILL not in any budget, over 3 years in office and no budget)...is the best.
The best plans cut deficit spending ( as Obama promised to do, and instead tripled), and increase the GDP through allowing private businesses to flourish ( which Obama's party has killed steadily).
My love to the future of our country..Our children will not thank us to hand them the USA of Greece out of ignorant utopian dreams of our fathers. We have to face the reality that the chickens have come home to roost. Doesn't matter any more how we got here or who did it, what matters is that we STOP the self-destructive cycle of borrowing and spending and making unfunded promises that are impossible to keep. We have to tell the truth and fix the problems we and our parents created, for the good of our kids.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2012 at 9:56 am
Jen: you wrote "A vote for any of the four GOP candidates is a return to the Bush policies and the Bush economy".
I would give my right arm for a return to the Bush economy of 2006, before the Dems took full control of the Congress, budget and laws.
Please? Can we have the Bush economy back? The most tax revenue ever? 5% unemployment? The fastest rise per capita income? The largest "rich-poor" gap since we had so many more super rich (but so many fewer poor and of those who were under the poverty line, only 1% stayed there?). Can we return to millions fewer on food stamps, millions fewer having given up on work, nobody in underwater homes, a Dow of 16,000 and climbing, 30% more in investment capital for future businesses and jobs? Can we have back our USA AAA rating? Can we go back to saying 8 trillion debt and 170 billion deficit spending is "unpatriotic"? Can we go back to complaining about the timeline to get out of Iraq being 2009 ..like Obama did but then it was good? Can we return to complaining about 2 military actions being too many (where as now 4 African countries enjoy the blessings of our military, Iran is threatening to enjoy our action, and Afghanistan is still killing people over burned paper?)....Can we return to worrying about Libya, when it gave up its WMD after we deposed Saddam, instead of worrying about Libya, who knows we won't do a darn thing about theirs?
Posted by Big Spenders, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Feb 25, 2012 at 10:33 am
Perspective, we agree on some things.
Raise GDP, raise revenue, jobs do both.
Cut spending for the long term - use the short term to create jobs - you can't balance the budget without jobs. Europe has shown us austerity in the middle of crisis only causes more pain and a slower recovery.
Mitt got it: "If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy"
Don't give more tax breaks to the wealthiest in the middle of this deficit disaster (absurdly, all the GOP candidates unwisely do so.). If tax breaks worked for job creation or to raise revenues, then Bush wouldn't have left us with such a mess. Please don't advance the fallacy that tax cuts magically raise revenue for anything beyond a year or two (as the wealthy sell off long term investments.)
Return to Clinton spending and rates. It provided a balanced budget. It's the place to start.
It provided a balanced budget and a great economy. Who was the last Republican to do either?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm
BS: Please note when Democrats took over both houses of the Congress.Hmmm...not saying Democrats are bad, just economically illiterate. Also note when Repubs took over both houses of Congress under Clinton. Not saying Repubs are good, just economically literate. We have a balance of power ( or, we are supposed to have a balance of power).
"Don't give more tax breaks to the wealthiest" blah blah. How do you explain the most tax revenues ever after the "Bush tax cuts" in 2001? In the middle of a recession? After a massive recession increase from 9/11?
Not saying tax cuts are the only way..must be coupled with business and investor confidence that they will be able to 1) control their businesses and 2) reap the rewards of the risks they take while taking the hits when they fail
Look at the whole picture, not just one brush stroke.
Posted by Big Spenders, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Feb 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Your argument about GOP being the "literate" half of split government (Clinton/GOP, Bush/Dem) doesn't hold water and is patently absurd.
Proof? Look at the period in between, when the GOP had both houses and the executive through January 2007.
What happened to our $120 billion budget Clinton SURPLUS that they were handed in January 2001? Trillions in deficit spending. Tax cuts inordinately favoring the wealthy. Huge programs unpaid for. Paved the way for the worst of the Bush recession and massive job losses, 3/4 of a million jobs lost per month through April, 2009.
You also ignored this:
"Return to Clinton spending and rates. It provided a balanced budget. It's the place to start.
It provided a balanced budget and a great economy. Who was the last Republican to do either?"
Posted by Matt Mateo, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 9:55 am
In 2008, John McCain won the Ohio primary with 54% of the vote.
Yesterday, Romney runs against the remaining joke candidates - Dr. Paul, Newton Leroy and Frothy Rick - and barely gets 38%. Against those fools. Even after outspending the Frothmeister by millions upon millions in negative ads.
No GOP candidate has ever won the presidency without Ohio.
Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 11:27 am
@ Matt Mateo: I have no ax to grind given that I'm at peace with the fact that Republicans and Democrats are equally incapable of sound economic management, but I do need to point out to you and everyone else here that the job growth you speak of is *horrifically bad* when viewed outside the context of a bi-partisan presidential election.
Case in point: read this article Web Link (dated today 03/09/12) and which shows both jobs reality, *and* the nakedly political downward revision of labor force size that lets mathematically challenged grassroots blog trolls sound in-teg-i-lent.
Posted by Jen Carlo, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 11:49 am
You predicted yet again, a poster who doesn't see the trends & refuses to comment on month to month job growth over the last two years. Web Link As I have agreed, we have a long way to go.
If today's job growth of a couple hundred thousand a month, for 24 consecutive months is "*horrifically bad*" what would Ms Zaharias call job losses of almost a million a month in late 2008/Jan 2009 and the first months of the Obama administration?
Love those who lump the parties together as equally incapable when evidence shows otherwise.
We must return to the Clinton balanced budgets - stimulate out of the Bush disaster and raise revenue with jobs, then cut spending.
Jobs. Not abortion fights. Not birth control. Not arguing about a drug addicted felon from the Neanderthal and his drug addled views of women.
Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 5:20 pm
@ Jen Carlo: to be clear, I did look at the link Matt provided. If no one has yet told you that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the source of the data in the graph) has been serially manipulated by successive Democratic and Republican administrations, allow me to do so.
If you want the apolitical truth of the matter, you must look deeper than the jobs data that is given to TMSM. For example, take a look at the article I already provided, and which shows how BLS nakedly manipulates numerators and denominators to raise or lower monthly job statistics as it pleases their masters.
Or, if you care to reacquaint yourself with reality by another means, look at this article discussing tax receipts during the period Matt's chart (which readers here now hopefully understand is one side's propaganda and *nothing more*) measures. What you'll see is that the marginal utility of said job growth to this country is... negative.
I have resigned myself to living in a world where people occupying either side of the same coin (Dems & Repubs) fight propaganda wars while D&R democratically elected representatives spend our way to financial ruin. I am also prepared for this future. I really don't care whether you buy into the truth or not. I hope you do, though, and I hope others realize that outside of the Silicon Valley cocoon, the jobs situation is and has been horrible for a long time. Arguing over who's at fault? We're *all* at fault for
1. overspending on conceited notions of our place in the world; and
2. social services spending that is neither social nor sustainable
Posted by Jen Carlo, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I'll look at the link later when I have some time. I don't disagree with a fair amount of your points. I also assume that the tax receipts reflect the vast amount of UNDER employment as well as unemployment.
One has to look at trends. Do you completely disagree with the monthly jobs reported?
What do you suggest? Cut spending and austerity, which will cripple jobs as we've seen in Europe, or creating jobs to increase revenues and get back to a serious discussion about a balanced budget?
Or argue about social issues that were decided decades ago?