Between a 1 and a 10, how big a disappointment is Obama to you?

[shootemwon]

if not for Watergate

Well If, In's or excuses. I don't rank Nixon high and the historians I read don't think much of him before Watergate, if he's your standard for a good president other then Watergate then so be it.

And what historians do you read? The ones who told you that our recovery from the Depression had nothing to do with government spending and legal currency = slavery?

 

[86 jordan]

@86jordan do NOT insult my intelligence. First of all, I'm not a Liberal, and second, you wrote a titangraph full of bullshit, you disagree with the expert economist at which FDR patterned his government spending on, you then dare to take this discussion to elementary lows because YOU didn't get an education higher than high school? I know about the WWII factor, okay? And I have plenty education. So Don't. Anyway there were many factors leading up to the recovery and WWII preparation was one of them, but Keynesian economics is what fueled the New Deal. Obama is trying to apttern off of this. We slipped back into recession because we weren't following Keynes' advice, but instead tried to please the Republicans during that time. Once we stopped giving a fuck about their sorry, economy-ignorant asses we were back on our toes. This has occured throughout history. When will the Republicans learn that Classical is not the way?

Like I've stated over and over again, fiscal economics is the route to eventual recovery, which leads to inflation in the long future which can then in turn give us a surplus. You can pay off the debt with this, and that's why he's brilliant. I don't give a damn about what the polls say, because unlike you I look at history and not what pro-legalization-of-weed, economy-stupid Americans & Conservatives have to say. They don't determine his intelligence. This is why we need a Liberal in office in time of recession. A Republican does not understand the way an economy works and thus will leave this country assed-out.

Ok I have a HS education, and liberals are right and Republicans "will leave this country assed-out" whatever mane

guess I'll take my degree off the wall because Soulljjah on a net forum said I didn't go to college

 

[shootemwon]

"Politicians aren't in charge of the Federal Reserve"

True, however when you have The Secretary or Treasury reporting to the President and Fed Chairman appointed by the President, could a conflict of interest occur?

Do you know the history on Timothy Geithner , Hank Paulson, The New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs?

Could the Federal Reserve, which is private, have a rotation of positions in government? Between politicians, lobbyist, and those private banks in the Federal Reserve System working together could they be for our best interest?

Is the current system ok to you, or broke, and are these legit questions?

If the current system is ok to you then we agree to disagree, if not then what is your position, since you and other smarts on this forum assume I know everything from High School. I answered your questions now answer mine if we are to exchange in this discussion.

Idiot, you're talking about getting rid of the Fed without even proposing an alternative plan beforehand, and then just hoping some great new system will present itself. You're going to need to do better than "conflict of interest" to justify that.

 

[tdoto88]

@86jordan do NOT insult my intelligence. First of all, I'm not a Liberal, and second, you wrote a titangraph full of bullshit, you disagree with the expert economist at which FDR patterned his government spending on, you then dare to take this discussion to elementary lows because YOU didn't get an education higher than high school? I know about the WWII factor, okay? And I have plenty education. So Don't. Anyway there were many factors leading up to the recovery and WWII preparation was one of them, but Keynesian economics is what fueled the New Deal. Obama is trying to apttern off of this. We slipped back into recession because we weren't following Keynes' advice, but instead tried to please the Republicans during that time. Once we stopped giving a fuck about their sorry, economy-ignorant asses we were back on our toes. This has occured throughout history. When will the Republicans learn that Classical is not the way?

Like I've stated over and over again, fiscal economics is the route to eventual recovery, which leads to inflation in the long future which can then in turn give us a surplus. You can pay off the debt with this, and that's why he's brilliant. I don't give a damn about what the polls say, because unlike you I look at history and not what pro-legalization-of-weed, economy-stupid Americans & Conservatives have to say. They don't determine his intelligence. This is why we need a Liberal in office in time of recession. A Republican does not understand the way an economy works and thus will leave this country assed-out.

Powerful post.. respect.... expect for the bold; it was the economics of Keynes..not Keynesian economics they are two completely different things..
Also if you could; can you explain the underlined in a bit more detail please

 

[Cactus Jack]

Why is 86 jordan even trying to argue anymore?

 

[86 jordan]

Idiot, you're talking about getting rid of the Fed without even proposing an alternative plan beforehand, and then just hoping some great new system will present itself. You're going to need to do better than "conflict of interest" to justify that.

I gave an example of a non- fractional working reserve. You didn't read it or don't understand it. whatever, whats your plan? you never answer any questions, is why we can't exchange I'm really going to ignore you and your so called debating.

 

[shootemwon]

I gave an example of a non- fractional working reserve. You didn't read it or don't understand it. whatever, whats your plan? you never answer any questions, is why we can't exchange I'm really going to ignore you and your so called debating.

You gave an example and said back up currency with precious metal, but just saying "Gold standard" isn't an actual plan. The world is a more complicated place than your high school classroom. My plan would be to not abolish the Fed unless there's a solid plan for something better.

 

[MacOne]

"Politicians aren't in charge of the Federal Reserve"

True, however when you have The Secretary or Treasury reporting to the President and Fed Chairman appointed by the President, could a conflict of interest occur?

Do you know the history on Timothy Geithner , Hank Paulson, The New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs?

Could the Federal Reserve, which is private, have a rotation of positions in government? Between politicians, lobbyist, and those private banks in the Federal Reserve System working together could they be for our best interest?

Is the current system ok to you, or broke, and are these legit questions?

If the current system is ok to you then we agree to disagree, if not then what is your position, since you and other smarts on this forum assume I know everything from High School. I answered your questions now answer mine if we are to exchange in this discussion.

I dont think its worked as well as it could in the past, I think the Fed in general has made some poor decisions, but this doesn't mean it should be abolished.

 

[86 jordan]

Why is 86 jordan even trying to argue anymore?

Because you read it and if it was so wrong then why just ignore it? like I'm going to do to shootemwon's post

tdoto88 asked a legit question and I answered it, then mac, and shootem just wants to argue

 

[86 jordan]

I dont think its worked as well as it could in the past, I think the Fed in general has made some poor decisions, but this doesn't mean it should be abolished.

cool I respect the answer Mac

 

[shootemwon]

Because you read it and if it was so wrong then why just ignore it? like I'm going to do to shootemwon's post

tdoto88 asked a legit question and I answered it, then mac, and shootem just wants to argue

In other words, he's still got it in him to argue because he ignores everything in this thread that debunks his nonsense.

SMH, this guy is the Glenn Beck of the IC.

 

[tdoto88]

"Politicians aren't in charge of the Federal Reserve"

True, however when you have The Secretary or Treasury reporting to the President and Fed Chairman appointed by the President, could a conflict of interest occur?

Do you know the history on Timothy Geithner , Hank Paulson, The New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs?

Could the Federal Reserve, which is private, have a rotation of positions in government? Between politicians, lobbyist, and those private banks in the Federal Reserve System working together could they be for our best interest?

Is the current system ok to you, or broke, and are these legit questions?

If the current system is ok to you then we agree to disagree, if not then what is your position, since you and other smarts on this forum assume I know everything from High School. I answered your questions now answer mine if we are to exchange in this discussion.

Ok I read your reasons & if you believe those i cant do anything else but respect, but i will have to disagree...

Back when the gold standard was active, the world was not as connected as it is now (even if it was only 35 or so yrs ago) & to put the gold standrd back into play would only do more harm than good as it wouldnt allow for flexible exchange rates at all or limit the Feds power to conduct monetary policy in case of a recession/depression.

But noway in hell should the Fed come under control of politicians

 

[janklow]

Well If, In's or excuses. I don't rank Nixon high and the historians I read don't think much of him before Watergate, if he's your standard for a good president other then Watergate then so be it.

shootem may not like me agreeing with him, but historians generally give Nixon credit where it's due. it's the members of the general public that ONLY know about Watergate that have such a low opinion of Nixon.

 

[kingblaze84]

The Federal Reserve is necessary in this world now, especially with this shaky economy. Going to a gold standard would hinder the Federal Government's efficiency because if we're out of gold for whatever reason, the govt can't bail anyone out. With paper currency, it is MUCH easier for the govt to bail people (and companies) out. We can print paper, but we can't print out gold.

I'm not crazy with all the power the Fed Reserve has, but it is something that is very necessary to keep our system of govt working and moving faster. It's a shame though that the nation is in so much debt due to irresponsible spending from BOTH parties, but mostly from Republicans. Let's not forget Reagan was the first president to produce a trillion dollar debt.

 

[kingblaze84]

Obama was right to do the stimulus thing, but the stimulus could have been much larger if we could have left Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2009. I think it's about time the American people got a small bailout, especially those in poor cities and states with high unemployment. More money for the American people, less money for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.....anyone with me?

 

[TimroD]

none zero nada

i knew he was a puppet b4 election and i still know now

a very cool puppet tho

 

[shootemwon]

Obama was right to do the stimulus thing, but the stimulus could have been much larger if we could have left Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2009. I think it's about time the American people got a small bailout, especially those in poor cities and states with high unemployment. More money for the American people, less money for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.....anyone with me?

There's no debating that both wars have been a colossal waste of resources, but whether we pulled out or not, there's no excuse for the stimulus being so small. The national debt is a long term problem, not something we need to address immediately. In fact, trying to address it in the middle of a recession is moronic and a perfect recipe for further disaster. It's inexcusable that a guy like Obama, who ran as a progressive with a firm understanding of what needs to be done to get us out of this economic slump, would embrace any ideas put forward by the deficit hawks right now.

 

[mikeymoe]

Obama is a puppet in a play that we are only here to watch. Like KRS-ONE said...back in '08, black folks were so pissed, we were ready to tear this bitch UP! They put a black man in office and we all sat down on our hands with Kool-Aid smiles. Wake up people...they fuckin us wit out even payin for dinner.

 

[kingblaze84]

Obama is a puppet in a play that we are only here to watch. Like KRS-ONE said...back in '08, black folks were so pissed, we were ready to tear this bitch UP! They put a black man in office and we all sat down on our hands with Kool-Aid smiles. Wake up people...they fuckin us wit out even payin for dinner.

So verrrrry true!!!!!!!! It's a shame though, that someone who is such a good speaker and charismatic, doesn't stop our warmongering and blind, disgusting support of Israel. Why tie ourselves to a nation like Israel, which has such a terrible reputation worldwide???

Obama, wake up!!!!!!!! Stop letting the bloodthirsty warmongers in DC control you!!!!!!!!

 

[shootemwon]

So verrrrry true!!!!!!!! It's a shame though, that someone who is such a good speaker and charismatic, doesn't stop our warmongering and blind, disgusting support of Israel. Why tie ourselves to a nation like Israel, which has such a terrible reputation worldwide???

Obama, wake up!!!!!!!! Stop letting the bloodthirsty warmongers in DC control you!!!!!!!!

I struggle between feeling that Obama is really the one dropping the ball and believing that the problems are so systemic that Obama has no realistic option but to play into the bullshit. But ultimately, leadership is about overcoming systemic barriers to progress, and Obama has shown that he knows what is right, but he's not willing to confront systemic challenges head on to do what he knows should be done. In that sense, he's a brilliant guy and a great leader for a movement (as we saw during the campaign) but he's not a leader when it comes to actually getting the job done

Perhaps we would have been better off with Obama remaining in the Senate as the leader of a strong American progressive movement, putting pressure on someone else who holds the Presidency. I say this because, now that he's in office, it's clear that he's not doing anything different than what you would get with someone like Hillary (for example), so wouldn't he be a more valuable force for change if he was still SENATOR Obama who commanded an army of supporters and activists united for real progress? Just a thought. Of course, if Obama had a little more testicular fortitude, he could still embody that movement while ALSO being President.