http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021153994Oh my.
pathansen (744 posts)
Is Obama really at fault if there is high unemployment?
Its the businesses who do the hiring, not the President.
So if corporations want Romney to win, they can simply stop hiring until after election.
Right?
Stupidest campfire of the day. And it's only about 9:00 a.m.
MichiganVote (17,548 posts)
1. tis' the same thinking that blames teachers for an entire ed. system-irrational ignorance.
Egalitarian Thug (2,771 posts)
2. Because he bailed out the criminals, passed the check to us and our grandchildren, and refuses to even talk about going after the guilty. He has rejected every proposal out-of-hand that entails pushing currency into the level that would actually turn this disaster around, and defends the defenders of The Greatest Heist in the History of the World at every turn.
If he loses this election, something I think unlikely due to the insanity of the opposition, he has no one but himself to blame.
pathansen (744 posts)
6. Wall street bailout occurred in 2008, under Bush Adm.
Obama bailed out GM but they recovered and paid back all the money that was bailed out.
Correction.
Bela Pelosi and Scary Harry bailed out Wall Street in 2008.
George Bush was a lame-duck president, saddled with a hostile Congress, and could only rubber-stamp.
Don't be blaming George Bush for anything that happened after January 3, 2007; put the blame where it belongs.
cherokeeprogressive (13,157 posts)
10. "but they recovered and paid back all the money..."
Um...
You might want to rethink that.
former9thward (4,383 posts)
11. You are wrong on every count.
TARP was passed in Oct 2008 under Bush. Obama had come off the campaign trail and demanded Democrats in Congress support it. Of the $430 billion in TARP funds only about $130 billion were spend by the Bush administration. The Obama administration spend $300 billion bailing out companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
GM still owes the taxpayers about $30 billion. It is never expected to be repaid. Under the deal it will be years before GM pays any federal taxes even though they are making a profit. http://www.9and10news.com/story/19268742/gm-stock
Uh huh.
Don't be blaming George Bush for the bail-out.
He didn't have any say in the matter, and was compelled to sign whatever Bela and Harry shoved in front of him.
part man all 86 (244 posts)
13. Yes that is true, but U.S. owns stock in GM so some will be recovered.
But the trillions spent on the war will never be paid back, current cost is over $2,440, per American. I will take the GM bailout over the sorry excuse for wars.
Egalitarian Thug (2,771 posts)
17. The question I answered was "Why are voters blaming Obama for high unemployment?"
TARP was Bush, all that followed (would you really like a list?) were the President's choices. American as a group understand just about nothing about economics, but they still have eyes and ears, and virtually all of us clearly saw who and where our resources were placed. The American citizens were clearly a much lower priority than the group collectively known as Wall Street.
We can debate the whole thing again, and god knows it's been thoroughly debated on Democratic message boards as I'm sure it was/is here, but the question was why are they placing the blame with him and the answer is because of what he did, for whom he did it, and what he got in return. He utterly rejected the very principles that this party once embraced and the people that should be his supporters feel betrayed by that rejection.
GM was one small example of doing (kind of) the right thing and he saved many jobs in the doing, but let's not pretend that that was enough. He campaigned on change but delivered some slight tweaking completely within the dysfunctional framework of the kleptocracy.
So, now we have the 25% of bat-shit crazies that would not vote for him if he personally came to their homes, cured all their problems and walked across the swimming pool leaving a big bag of money. The 30% or so that would vote for him if he ate a puppy in the rose garden, and the rest that are just looking for a leader that will unambiguously support their interests, and he lost many of them with his choices to defer to the people that screwed it all up.
Trillions for Wall Street, nothing for Main Street. It is such an easy picture to see from outside the beltway.
Hmmmm.
That must be a reference to Barack Milhous.
sendero (24,037 posts)
22. The president in power..
... generally takes the hit for an economy this bad. And the only reason Obama isn't is that Romney/Ryan virtually define the term "suck ass".
Obama has made serious and grave missteps since day one. Sure, by the time 2010 rolled around and he was starting to "get it" that this is not your father's 12-18 month standard recession, he had no power to do anything in the face of Republican obstructionism. The economy/employment should have been his top priority from the beginning, it left me totally dumbfounded that it was not, that the ACA was deemed more important and all political capital spent on it.
He's only recently even begun to use the rhetoric against the right that he also should have been using from DAY ONE.
I think Obama will win re-election. But really, he has failed pretty seriously IMHO.
Egalitarian Thug (2,771 posts)
24. IMO, you nailed it. He blew the greatest opportunity to change the direction of this nation we have seen since the Great Depression. He came in timid and deferred to the very people he should have been throwing to the mob.
I read a statement at that time that I think summed it up, "His allies don't respect him and his enemies don't fear him".
Whoa.
Excellent commentary there.
sendero (24,037 posts)
29. Bzzzzzttt..
.... he may have had little room in terms of bailing out the banks, but he DAMN WELL COULD have exacted a much higher price for doing so. And he didn't have to surround himself with the perpetrators he could have sought a second opinion.
Talk of "reform" leaves me cold as Dodd-Frank is a joke and it's clear that it is exactly the kind of thing Obama goes for, nibbling at the margins, not getting to the heart of the problem (he did the same thing with health care).
Obama shows all the symptoms of a person who tries to please everyone and winds up pleasing no one. And in some situations that might be ideal but not in this one.
I would rather have Obama in office than Romney but I have no illusions whatsoever than a second Obama term will be much better than the first.
madrchsod (53,636 posts)
3. not necessarily
demand will make business hire people. where i live there`s been a slow but steady increase in both recall and new openings. it`s certainly not like it was during the bush years.
That's right.
It's certainly not like it was during the Bush years.
During the Bush years, demand for labor pretty damned high.
backscatter712 (16,050 posts)
4. No, he's attempted to take direct actions to address this problem.
Blame the Republicons in Congress for obstructing anything resembling effective action. They want the economy to be shitty so they can blame it on Obama.
Let's see here.
January 3, 2007 - January 3, 2011; Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial margins.
January 3, 2011 - present; Democrats still enjoy a good majority in the Senate, even though they lost the House.....and the Senate's obstructed all the House has tried to do.
I don't think anybody can blame Republicans for "obstructionism" here; we don't have the numbers.
Plus the Democrats have the White House and Supreme Court.
madville (775 posts)
8. It's a double edged sword
If employment improved could he claim credit for it?
Small businesses and corporations employ the majority of people in this country. The government needs to provide a situation that enables private business to thrive and employ people domestically. The debate is how do you provide a situation for that? I don't think a President really has much direct power over "creating jobs". Congress and the President could work to create a business friendly environment but again, multiple opposing ideas over how to do that and nothing really happens.
I would say remove healthcare issues from the business/employer world entirely, simplify the tax code, take away the advantage of overseas labor that costs pennies, etc
part man all 86 (244 posts)
14. No!
Republicans watered down the stimulus and it was much worse than thought. Nearly four times worst.
Republicans filibustered 79 bills, watered down other bills like jobs bill and frank-dobbs, and in the last 18 months congress has passed over 700 bill to investigate President Obama, over 400 bills to stop abortion, over 500 bills about taxes, so on and so on. The debt ceiling showdown the grand ole farts got our credit rating lowered. But you know this and why it is very important to get people in congress to move it to the left so we can get President Obama to move from the right to the left, I hope.
The Democrats had some pretty solid numbers in Congress 2007-2011.
Wasn't that when all this stimulus stuff started?
Don't be blaming the minority party; the majority party rules.
B Calm (16,361 posts)
18. What happened to the republicans who said in 2010 if you vote for us we will focus on unemployment like a laser?
We did, but the Democrats in the Senate and the White House didn't want to have anything to do with it.
B Calm (16,361 posts)
20. Where are the jobs Boehner?
Almost 2 years into his leadership role, you'd think he has to come up with a reason why he hasn’t stuck to his campaign promise.
He tried, but the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate and the White House stalled him.
Put the blame where the blame belongs.
It's like shouting into the wind, trying to explain how things really were, and are, to the dense primitives.
