Bushbama?

While talking to various people lately, I've come across more and more who refer to Obama as Bushbama. It's even been in the press. Most, I believe, are liberals and progressives. But they all seem to be disappointed Obama supporters, even the moderates. Some of the people who were the staunchest Obama defenders until recently, have taken a step back and are no longer voicing support for him. Anyone with one eye and a hearing aid knows my feelings about NO!bama. What's your take? He's just announced for re-election.

He will win the nomination and the election.

Why ??

Because as disappointed as people may be the alternatives out there are unacceptable.

Maybe you should call him "Snowbama"... for those folks who thought that he was going to bring back Camelot....

As for the realists... he only has so much power... and cannot do as he or the left wing of the party pleases...

So far I've yet to find anyone to replace him... and he's definitely not as daffy as Bush...

Personally I think what all these Republican governors have been doing, taxing the retirees, stripping rights from unions, etc will give Obama a boost at election time. Voters will remember all of this and perhaps think if governors will do this, what will a Republican President do? I think the Republican party under the guise of reducing the deficit, will do it on the backs of the middle class and poor and just give the rich and big business even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

While talking to various people lately, I've come across more and more who refer to Obama as Bushbama. It's even been in the press. Most, I believe, are liberals and progressives. But they all seem to be disappointed Obama supporters, even the moderates. Some of the people who were the staunchest Obama defenders until recently, have taken a step back and are no longer voicing support for him. Anyone with one eye and a hearing aid knows my feelings about NO!bama. What's your take? He's just announced for re-election.

---

"Feelings" of disappointment would have ensued regardless of who had become president. It would be terrific if any candidate were to emerge with the ability to challenge for 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

He will win the nomination and the election.

Why ??

Because as disappointed as people may be the alternatives out there are unacceptable.

---

Exactly! It's amazing that there would be enough people left to actually give the GOP a chance at the WH. Afterall the GOP is assualting the MAJORTIY of Amercia with their policies. I seriously hope for a landslide.

Next on the agenda - Corporations

The republicans have put all their energy towards making sure this administration doesn't accomplish anything. They're a bunch of fat cat maggots that can afford to sit back for four years while the country stagnates. In general they are not good people and don't have one bit of compassion for people in need.
Their strategy is so basic I can't believe anyone would buy into it. Not voting for Obama in 2012 would play directly into their strategy.
I don't agree with a number of things Obama has done, but if these other clowns get back in power, God help us all.
Anyway, that's kind of how I feel about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Searay215

Personally I think what all these Republican governors have been doing, taxing the retirees, stripping rights from unions, etc will give Obama a boost at election time. Voters will remember all of this and perhaps think if governors will do this, what will a Republican President do? I think the Republican party under the guise of reducing the deficit, will do it on the backs of the middle class and poor and just give the rich and big business even more.

---

You make an interesting point. People should really, I mean really watch what these Repub gov's do over the next two year. I will be watching particularly the progress or lack thereof of the two Rick's ... Synder in Michigan and Scott in Florida. Both are so-called self made millionaires who financed their own campaigns, They both claim they will create jobs. If they actually do what they say then I will give the Repubs all the credit. The thing we will need to sort out is how much credit do they take for increased jobs when some if not all could be due to a general improvement in the national economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

... The thing we will need to sort out is how much credit do they take for increased jobs when some if not all could be due to a general improvement in the national economy.

---

Exactly. E.g., from today's Detroit News headline: State's job growth outraces forecast. Great news but let's not let the credit go to anyone merely exploiting it politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

While talking to various people lately, I've come across more and more who refer to Obama as Bushbama. It's even been in the press. Most, I believe, are liberals and progressives. But they all seem to be disappointed Obama supporters, even the moderates. Some of the people who were the staunchest Obama defenders until recently, have taken a step back and are no longer voicing support for him. Anyone with one eye and a hearing aid knows my feelings about NO!bama. What's your take? He's just announced for re-election.

---

After eight years of a president deliberately demolishing his own country who seemed to take pride in being a jackass, I'm not surprised people are disappointed that his successor hasn't reversed course fast enough. Eight years of destruction requires more than eight years to reverse, just by the nature of entropy.

Every time I hear criticism of Obama I weigh it against the unspoken [[unspeakable?) alternative of McCain. The country dodged a bullet when it dodged McCain. The man has anger issues and was one election away from access to the nuclear football.

Count your blessings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

.

Every time I hear criticism of Obama I weigh it against the unspoken [[unspeakable?) alternative of McCain. The country dodged a bullet when it dodged McCain. The man has anger issues and was one election away from the nuclear football.

Count your blessings.

---

If you want a blow-by-by account of just how bad McCain was read "The Promise" by Jonathan Alter
according to the book McCain was so disengaged and misinformed during the TARP discussions it had members of his own party shaking their heads, and Obama was quoted to the effect of saying "I may not deserve to be president, but he certainly doesn't".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

The republicans have put all their energy towards making sure this administration doesn't accomplish anything. They're a bunch of fat cat maggots that can afford to sit back for four years while the country stagnates. In general they are not good people and don't have one bit of compassion for people in need.
Their strategy is so basic I can't believe anyone would buy into it. Not voting for Obama in 2012 would play directly into their strategy.
I don't agree with a number of things Obama has done, but if these other clowns get back in power, God help us all.
Anyway, that's kind of how I feel about it.

---

That's all well and fine, OG, but you ignore the fact that demicans sit and watch as republicrat tanks roll over us. How much better is that? It takes a bit longer for republicrats to achieve their objectives, but they achieve them just the same. We can't stay in a holding or retreating position forever. The demicans are counting on exactly the position you propose: "we can't not vote for a demican, what would the alternative be?" Demicans have used this strategy for years. So, now we've voted NO!bama in and he's played into republicrat hands, so we better go along with NO!bama for another 4 years? Sorry, I don't buy it. We may need to have a complete whacko, right-wing, fundie, nutcase take the presidency to get people out in the streets. I may have to abstain. Not my preference, but.........

I have to admit, the democrats strategy, or lack of strategy baffles me. I've been watching a lot of the Civil War history over the last few evenings and keep seeing parallels between General George McClellan and Obama. It's sad really.

1KD, I understand what you're saying about having an extreme right wing ideologue in office stirring up the left wing base. It certainly worked with Bush, but the damage done while he was in office will probably linger for decades.

I've studied FDR and the great depression in depth. What I'm seeing play out right now is very similar. He saw a vision for pulling this country out of the depths of poverty and fought for it. Everyone fought him all the way and worried about socialism and the programs he developed. He was blamed for trying to spend our way out of the depression. The CCC programs were despised by labor groups. You could take the conservatives that opposed him and insert names from todays politicians in their stories and it would read the same. It's a tough battle. Obama's going to have to get a lot tougher to get people back on board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I've studied FDR and the great depression in depth. What I'm seeing play out right now is very similar. He saw a vision for pulling this country out of the depths of poverty and fought for it. Everyone fought him all the way and worried about socialism and the programs he developed. He was blamed for trying to spend our way out of the depression. The CCC programs were despised by labor groups. You could take the conservatives that opposed him and insert names from todays politicians in their stories and it would read the same. It's a tough battle. Obama's going to have to get a lot tougher to get people back on board.

---

FDR also buckled like a belt in 1937, and after one term allowed himself to be convinced by reactionary fiscal fanatics that The Single Most Important Thing on Earth is the federal deficit.

Of course, we know that cutting the deficit in 1937 boosted unemployment and sent the economy back into a tizzy. You'd think someone as learned as Obama would be able to learn from history and ignore the demands of the Penny-Wise Pound-Stupidass GOP. Instead, he makes concessions in an attempt to seem centrist and "fair". Bullshit. I want policies that WORK, not policies that are fair to morons.

Have a press conference and roll out the graph of unemployment during the Roosevelt administration so that the Americans who can only read in pictures get the damned idea through their heads. Then you tell Boehner to suck it, and you move forward with fixing the country. Done and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

FDR also buckled like a belt in 1937, and after one term allowed himself to be convinced by reactionary fiscal fanatics that The Single Most Important Thing on Earth is the federal deficit.

Of course, we know that cutting the deficit in 1937 boosted unemployment and sent the economy back into a tizzy. You'd think someone as learned as Obama would be able to learn from history and ignore the demands of the Penny-Wise Pound-Stupidass GOP. Instead, he makes concessions in an attempt to seem centrist and "fair". Bullshit. I want policies that WORK, not policies that are fair to morons.

Have a press conference and roll out the graph of unemployment during the Roosevelt administration so that the Americans who can only read in pictures get the damned idea through their heads. Then you tell Boehner to suck it, and you move forward with fixing the country. Done and done.

---

I agree with that 100%. And I wonder if these guys never read about FDR or the great depression.
It's pretty basic shit.
I have to think that the deficit is just a smoke screen. It needs to be dealt with, but not with the urgency they're claiming. There are also other ways to reduce the deficit without stalling the recovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I agree with that 100%. And I wonder if these guys never read about FDR or the great depression.
It's pretty basic shit.
I have to think that the deficit is just a smoke screen. It needs to be dealt with, but not with the urgency they're claiming. There are also other ways to reduce the deficit without stalling the recovery.

---

Yeah, it's called "growing the economy". But the Reactionary party has determined [[in spite of all evidence) that the only way to grow the economy is by cutting the taxes of billionaires. They've shown no interest in actually putting the other 99% of Americans to work, or growing the prosperity of us unwashed masses. They are hellbent on "proving" that their self-serving ideology "works"--even if it means they have to send the nation into oblivion in the process.

The reason the GOP doesn't care about the disconnect between their politics and reality is that they SIMPLY DON'T GIVE A SHIT. They personally have nothing to lose, and everything to gain through exploitation. I mean, why should they give a shit? If the Great Experiment comes to an end, they'll be drinking champagne and eating caviar on their yachts. Why would they give half a flying fuck about us peasants? They're literally banking on our stupidity and laziness.

Welcome to the Plantation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I agree with that 100%. And I wonder if these guys never read about FDR or the great depression.
It's pretty basic shit.
I have to think that the deficit is just a smoke screen. It needs to be dealt with, but not with the urgency they're claiming. There are also other ways to reduce the deficit without stalling the recovery.

---

Yeah, let's all go back to the good old days when after eight years in power, the unemployment rate was still 14% under Roosevelt. Devalue the dollar by 35% for good measure and have farmers dump their milk while city people stood in bread lines. Obama is doing all the same things but the Bush/Obama recession wasn't as bad to start with. Still, 8.7% unemployment with three wars going, an few trillion dollars of debt for out kids to pay off [[$1T= about $6,000/family), the average US family losing $125,000 in equity between the past Wall Street and present housing slump, and the dive in the purchasing power of our money are good starts for simulating Roosevelt's glory days. Change we can believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I have to admit, the democrats strategy, or lack of strategy baffles me. It's a tough battle. Obama's going to have to get a lot tougher to get people back on board.

---

"Get a lot tougher?" NO!bama has much more to do than that. Most people I speak to have been so seriously disillusioned by NO!bama and the demicans, they're thinking of sitting it out. Granted, that may not amount to huge numbers, but demicans have a habit of blaming Nader and other candidates for their own foibles and losing by a few thousand votes. That's why I proposed 'Trying To Win Our Balls Back' as the demican anthem for 2012. They can be trusted to do no more than hold down the hatches for awhile. Rough seas ahead!

Republicrats offer no excuses at all to enact their policies and legislation, no matter how absurd. Demicans cry all the way to the polls. Who's carrying whose water?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Yeah, let's all go back to the good old days when after eight years in power, the unemployment rate was still 14% under Roosevelt. Devalue the dollar by 35% for good measure and have farmers dump their milk while city people stood in bread lines. Obama is doing all the same things but the Bush/Obama recession wasn't as bad to start with. Still, 8.7% unemployment with three wars going, an few trillion dollars of debt for out kids to pay off [[$1T= about $6,000/family), the average US family losing $125,000 in equity between the past Wall Street and present housing slump, and the dive in the purchasing power of our money are good starts for simulating Roosevelt's glory days. Change we can believe in.

---

I still can't buy into the idea that everyone lost fortunes due to the loss of equity in their homes. When I saw homes that were valued at around $80,000.00, suddenly jump to a value of say, $140,000.00, I couldn't understand what was going on. It took a while to sink in. When the false bubble burst, and the housing prices fell back to what they were originally valued at, [[fair value price) everyone went berserk. I feel for the people that bought in at the inflated prices, but they should have done a little homework before they bought. They were investing in something that seemed too good to be true. As far as people that owned homes, saw the equity skyrocket and then drop back to the realistic price of what it was before the bubble, get over it.
Building contractors jumped on the bandwagon and now we've got a glut of new homes. It's going to take a while to sell those off.

As far as FDR goes, look what he was up against. It was a worldwide depression. Exports, although not a huge part of our economy, came to a standstill. Half the soil in the midwest and west blew away. Hordes of locust that blackened the skies ate any crops that did grow. How long did the drought last, a decade? Unemployment was at least 25%. FDR was no messiah, but the fact that the country rebounded was nothing short of a miracle.

I'm not saying that we should follow what he did or use it as a template, but there's a lot to be learned from the depression.

Right now Oladub, the unemployment rate here in Wisconsin is 7.4%. I let people place employment ads in the classified section of my paper for free. I talked to over 15 businesses this week that told me they can't find employees. I don't understand what's going on. We cover over 7 counties and many of those do have a much higher unemployment rate than the states 7.4% average. So what's going on? Seriously, I am confused about this recession.

old guy, I think you made a good point about the reduction in personal equity being measured from the peak of the housing bubble. It won't hurt a lot of people like yourself if they aren't planning to sell their house. However, as measured from the peak, people have less to spend or borrow on and that slows the economy.

The country didn't truly rebound until after the war when the rest of the world needed to build and we had the last factories standing to produce for foreign markets. The war did lower unemployment though.

I don't know why there is such a problem with your area's local hiring unless the wages are adjusted so low that they only attract foreign labor. I'm thinking you are in a certain tourist are. The Bakken oil field in ND and the Canadian oil sands are attracting a lot of workers cold places but they are paying high wages. I know that where I am, I see more and more Mexican farm hands in Walmarts. Farmers can't get anyone else to live in dumpy trailers and work for low pay and no benefits. Besides, they are good workers. If the farmers paid more, they could probably find some good US workers. With all the unemployment in Detroit, i'm surprised you'r not getting bites off the DY website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Have a press conference and roll out the graph of unemployment during the Roosevelt administration so that the Americans who can only read in pictures get the damned idea through their heads. Then you tell Boehner to suck it, and you move forward with fixing the country. Done and done.

---

The popular version of history that unemployment went down quickly under Roosevelt put in his New Deal is the best thing Obama has to sell his spend our way out of it theory. I think his teaching the true history of the depression would be disasterous for him.

A re-election defeat is only certain if we double dip before the election rather than after. Then, the blame will have to go to his own party for that Frank-Dodd excuse of a fix they put out there and for his keeping Goldman's golden boy Geithner. None of the core problems have been addressed and probably won't until after the next dip has happened.

I haven't seen any Republicans I'd pick over Obama, but how the public responds to both sides actions taken under this whole budget crisis is anyone's guess. There is no good solution to this mess both sides have gotten us into so people will be upset regardless of what solution is put out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

The popular version of history that unemployment went down quickly under Roosevelt put in his New Deal is the best thing Obama has to sell his spend our way out of it theory. I think his teaching the true history of the depression would be disasterous for him.

---

That "popular" version has data from BLS behind it. Where's yours? Unemployment went from 25% to 14% under the first four years of the New Deal. If you have numbers to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

I'd also like to know how we're expected to cycle money through the economy when individuals and businesses are afraid to spend, and banks aren't loaning.

Quote:

---

A re-election defeat is only certain if we double dip before the election rather than after. Then, the blame will have to go to his own party for that Frank-Dodd excuse of a fix they put out there and for his keeping Goldman's golden boy Geithner. None of the core problems have been addressed and probably won't until after the next dip has happened.

---

The likelihood of a double-dip recession increases if we try to balance the budget at this juncture. The economy is still on shaky ground, at best. Extending the Bush tax cuts--especially for the wealthy--certainly didn't help, and if anything, is promoting a lack of confidence in the Dollar in global markets. Long story short, investors don't think that Congress is serious about fiscal policy. Honestly--who can blame them? Such things tend to happen when you give away $250 billion to the wealthy, then shut down your government while disputing 12% of that amount [[which constitutes a whopping 1% of the budget).