Anyone on the left waking up yet?

[ccbatson]

Apparently not too many libs here are awake yet. I am curious as to when [[not if) it will happen.

For those with immigrant ancestors, particularly descended from Russian ancestors, if these great grandparents immigrated in the early 20th century to escape the Russian Communist Revolution and it's consequences....it is fascinating to draw the parallels, and, if possible, ask their opinions on the current direction we are taking...I have, and it is astounding. Former Democrats for decades, now given pause at the prospect of an American style Stalin in Obama.

[jams]

Apparently not too many libs here are awake yet. I am curious as to when [[not if) it will happen.

For those with immigrant ancestors, particularly descended from Russian ancestors, if these great grandparents immigrated in the early 20th century to escape the Russian Communist Revolution and it's consequences....it is fascinating to draw the parallels, and, if possible, ask their opinions on the current direction we are taking...I have, and it is astounding. Former Democrats for decades, now given pause at the prospect of an American style Stalin in Obama.

I'm sure there must be someplace in the world in the early 21st Century to emigrate that will please you.

[rb336]

This thread is perhaps the most incredibly stupid I have yet to see. Bats didn't even provide anything but a bunch of his normal, falacious diatribes, all in one post. he provided nothing of substance, and neither did any of the other wingnuts. putting a bunch of crap that has been proven false on this forum ad nauseum does not make for a suddenly "right" stamp.

tea parties? give me a break. they were a failure and a fraud
polls? yet again, they are on Obama's side, and strongly

[oladub]

I reworked Bat's question in my post # 20.

President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

So far, there have been two responses.

I thought that one to one and a half years should be an adequate time period to show some significant reversal as a result of President Obama's efforts. Neither Gibran nor Flanders were as opimistic about the possibility of President Obama being able to reverse the listed vestiges of the Bush administration and no one else replied. If fact, no Obama supporters have even ventured to answer when they would expect to see positive results. I was expecting more upbeat hopiechangy type answers instead of projected excuses.

Yes. its nice to again have a president who can speak in sentences and be able to strike up conversations with enemies like Hugo Chavez. In theory, the latter might head off more complications down the road. But at what specific point are you, as an Obama supporter, going to have buyer's regret if Obama fails to reverse Bush's disasterous policies as mentioned above? I'm not setting high standards here, After all, unemployment was still at 14.45% after Roosevelt, Obama's mentor, had been President for 8 years.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?"

Not "Buyers regret", but definitely a little impatient. Some things should have been acted upon immediately and have not been addressed. Obama harped about offshoring jobs, he hasn't done jack about it. Now Geithner is over in China strengthening ties with our "trade partner". Not sure what it is going to take. Sorta like a teenager with a credit card, it will take care of itself.

[firstandten]

I reworked Bat's question in my post # 20.

President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

So far, there have been two responses.

I thought that one to one and a half years should be an adequate time period to show some significant reversal as a result of President Obama's efforts. Neither Gibran nor Flanders were as opimistic about the possibility of President Obama being able to reverse the listed vestiges of the Bush administration and no one else replied. If fact, no Obama supporters have even ventured to answer when they would expect to see positive results. I was expecting more upbeat hopiechangy type answers instead of projected excuses.

Yes. its nice to again have a president who can speak in sentences and be able to strike up conversations with enemies like Hugo Chavez. In theory, the latter might head off more complications down the road. But at what specific point are you, as an Obama supporter, going to have buyer's regret if Obama fails to reverse Bush's disasterous policies as mentioned above? I'm not setting high standards here, After all, unemployment was still at 14.45% after Roosevelt, Obama's mentor, had been President for 8 years.

I would give Obama two years or halfway thru his term, give or take a quarter.I feel we should begin to see some tangeble results from some of the fixes he's putting in.

[gibran]

I actually think Obama is doing a great job...he's doing what he can in a short period to stop th eblood loss...now for the long term fix..that will take years...but if he can reverse the disaster of the last eight years ...it will be a long and costly process.. everyone knows it i s more difficult to fix a disater than to build from the ground up...you have to clean up mess before you even get to work on the new projects. i suspect if the election went the other way ...we would be far worse off trying to protect the legacy of failure...

I am optimistic...but change is very diffiuclt for those were benefitiing from Bush's Follies

[Flanders]

I reworked Bat's question in my post # 20.

President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

So far, there have been two responses.

I thought that one to one and a half years should be an adequate time period to show some significant reversal as a result of President Obama's efforts. Neither Gibran nor Flanders were as opimistic about the possibility of President Obama being able to reverse the listed vestiges of the Bush administration and no one else replied. If fact, no Obama supporters have even ventured to answer when they would expect to see positive results. I was expecting more upbeat hopiechangy type answers instead of projected excuses.

Yes. its nice to again have a president who can speak in sentences and be able to strike up conversations with enemies like Hugo Chavez. In theory, the latter might head off more complications down the road. But at what specific point are you, as an Obama supporter, going to have buyer's regret if Obama fails to reverse Bush's disasterous policies as mentioned above? I'm not setting high standards here, After all, unemployment was still at 14.45% after Roosevelt, Obama's mentor, had been President for 8 years.

Vestiges?

The revolutionary neocon-controlled Bush administration left behind a economic disaster that became global in scope, two ongoing and unresolvable "conflicts" and occupations, a "war on terror" vs a belief shared by 1.2 billion Muslims, a chillier relationship with the former USSR, a economic juggernaut in China that only grew in size thanks to borrowing funds and shipping our manufacturing jobs en masse to them, as well as tech/legal/communications jobs to India, and last but not least, a increasing hostile NK that was ignored in favor of attacking a much weaker Iraq, that makes anything encountered by previous incoming presidential administrations pale in comparison.

How about your explanation of why you apparently believe that the election of your third party candidate or McCain, would have been able to do what Obama has not done yet, will not be able to do at all, won't do, isn't doing, or would be able to do better and more quickly? All candidates, especially those who were not incumbent, regardless of party face many challenges that can not possibly be anticipated or known beforehand, after taking office. Many of their supporters will, have, and can exert great influence over their decisions afterward, due to their contributions in time and especially money. They face stiff opposition from not only the Republican or Democratic parties in Congress, but members of their own party as well. A third party POTUS would be at a MUCH greater disadvantage, obviously!!

[vetalalumni]

President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

Oladub, your revision [[above) deserves better and different consideration. Pondering now.
-----
Update.

Reversed must be precisely defined. Requirements and metrics as well.

Generally speaking, my outside expectations for improving each item varies. Elements include sustainability, scope, confidence-building, and leadership.

• record debt - 2015
• national deficits - 2015
• growing unemployment - 2012
• wars [[Iraq) - 2011
• wars [[Afghanistan) - 2015

... while diminishing our rights.

Semantics will reek havoc on this one, which begs to question why this one seems to have been surreptitiously slipped in with "record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars ..."?

[vetalalumni]

I am wondering if any ... folks out there are having second thoughts about Obama...

With the above alteration, I can now answer:

• Your excited anticipation aside, No.
• Always remain concerned about any changes. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, participate with your own intellect.

[oladub]

Flanders, You are totally ducking the question about when President Obama should be expected to start turning the ship of state around. Where did hope go? Senator Obama promised "yes, we can". He has already increased the national deficit from $9T to $11T in his first 100 days. That proves 'he can' spend money but when are we going to start seeing a payback? Or do you still expect 14% unemployment after eight years like with Roosevelt? You can only get so much return out of beating a dead horse. Bush is gone. Clinton is gone , Millard Fillmore is gone too. At some point, President Obama is responsible for the economy. I'm thinking that after spending $2T and borrowing 46% of government revenue something should show for it - at least 1.5 years later.

Here I'll help you. The stock market lost about 30% of its value about the time it was clear McCain didn't have a chance. It has since bounced back much of the way partly because of consumer confidence. Maybe you could give President Obama credit for that. I'm not sure I do but I'm trying to help you here.

As to what would have happened if my candidate Ron Paul would have won, it is irrelevent to the question you ducked. Neocons and Wall Street bankers wouldn't be as happy I suppose.

Original question- President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

I agree that Bush and Senators who voted for Bush's initiatives..ahem.. screwed up the country. I did not ask about total recovery. I just asked when we should expect to see some reversal of downward trends such as unemployment.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[ccbatson]

Let me know when [[not if) you finally turn the corner.

[ghettopalmetto]

Flanders, You are totally ducking the question about when President Obama should be expected to start turning the ship of state around. Where did hope go? Senator Obama promised "yes, we can". He has already increased the national deficit from $9T to $11T in his first 100 days. That proves 'he can' spend money but when are we going to start seeing a payback? Or do you still expect 14% unemployment after eight years like with Roosevelt? You can only get so much return out of beating a dead horse. Bush is gone. Clinton is gone , Millard Fillmore is gone too. At some point, President Obama is responsible for the economy. I'm thinking that after spending $2T and borrowing 46% of government revenue something should show for it - at least 1.5 years later.

Here I'll help you. The stock market lost about 30% of its value about the time it was clear McCain didn't have a chance. It has since bounced back much of the way partly because of consumer confidence. Maybe you could give President Obama credit for that. I'm not sure I do but I'm trying to help you here.

I smell serious misinformation.

1) McCain's poll numbers began their precipitous drop AFTER the economy started to go to pot. To imply that growing poll numbers for Obama caused the stock market to fall is utter bullshit, and you know it.

2) Our national debt [[NOT DEFICIT) is projected to increase to 70% of GDP. After World War II, our national debt was 120% of GDP. What happened? Until the Reagan administration, the level of debt in relation to GDP shrank. Yes, even with the Great Society programs the Right loves to bemoan. It wasn't until the early 1980s that massive debt became fashionable, simply because a B-list movie actor decided that government was the problem.

3) Unemployment under Roosevelt had fallen to 10% by 1937. Why did it rise? Because FDR listened to the right-wing "fiscal conservatives" and tried to balance the budget in 1938. It failed miserably, and unemployment rose again. The reason unemployment shrank from that 14% level was the massive government spending required by World War II.

In our current scenario, unemployment is projected to decrease within the next 2 years.

As far as I'm concerned, establishing a definitive "turn-around" date is overly simplistic. I'm curious to know from where this double standard arises. After all, no one established a definitive date to see how long it would take the Bush tax cuts [[any of them) to work.

[ccbatson]

Ghetto...think History and Socialism and all will become clear.

[oladub]

1) McCain's poll numbers began their precipitous drop AFTER the economy started to go to pot. To imply that growing poll numbers for Obama caused the stock market to fall is utter bullshit, and you know it.

By October McCain had little hope. He never had good polling numbers. The market then took a dive from 1161 [[S&P500) to 677. It has since climbed back to 943. Make what you want of it. I am puzzled by the recent climb. Housing prices and employment numbers continue to slide, banks keep needing more money, GM and Chrysler bit the dust, more debt is accrued, interest rates are beginning to nose upward, the dollar is in decline, and consumers are more confident?

2) Our national debt [[NOT DEFICIT) is projected to increase to 70% of GDP. After World War II, our national debt was 120% of GDP. What happened? Until the Reagan administration, the level of debt in relation to GDP shrank. Yes, even with the Great Society programs the Right loves to bemoan. It wasn't until the early 1980s that massive debt became fashionable, simply because a B-list movie actor decided that government was the problem.

I'm not sure your conclusion is logical. Otherwise, I agree that Reagan was a spendthrift. Not on the level of Obama but a spendthrift none the less. I voted for Carter.

3) Unemployment under Roosevelt had fallen to 10% by 1937. Why did it rise? Because FDR listened to the right-wing "fiscal conservatives" and tried to balance the budget in 1938. It failed miserably, and unemployment rose again. The reason unemployment shrank from that 14% level was the massive government spending required by World War II.

In our current scenario, unemployment is projected to decrease within the next 2 years.

As far as I'm concerned, establishing a definitive "turn-around" date is overly simplistic. I'm curious to know from where this double standard arises. After all, no one established a definitive date to see how long it would take the Bush tax cuts [[any of them) to work.

Oh yeah right... Roosevelt listened to fiscal conservatives. Maybe he listened to fiscal conservatives throughout his entire administration. Maybe that's why Roosevelt never ended the Depression. Thank goodness for world wars. Your statistics don't agree with those of the Census Bureau either. I really hope that President Obama can do a better job than Roosevelt. Roosevelt spent like crazy, devalued the dollar from $20 to $35 per ounce of gold, but never solved the unemployment problem. I could put a lot of people to work if I borrowed money too.

Depression Era Unemployment Statistics

Year, Unemployed Percentage of Labor Force
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 [[Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70.

I guess what you are saying is that you have no idea how long, if ever, it will take President Obama to turn around Bush's record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars and diminishment of our rights. This isn't all about money though. President Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan and expanded President Bush's wiretapping program. Its going to be hard to turn things around if he is still going in the wrong direction.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[rb336]

Ghetto...think History and Socialism and all will become clear.

given the total misunderstanding and/or ignorance of history you have consistently presented here, that is funny.

gp is dead on in his/her analysis, and history backs him, not you

[ccbatson]

Be patient libs...the escalating misery will open your eyes soon.

[Detroitej72]

Really now, can it be any worse than the current Republican Recession we're experiencing?

Lets hope it doesn't become the second Republican Depression.

[ccbatson]

Sigh....it will not take long to realize that increasing taxes and the reaction of businesses to this pressure have nothing to do with GWB, and everything to do with our Marxist in chief today...Obama.

[Lorax]

Batts, you should be thrilled that Obama is tossing so much money at the banks, since there isn't a Repugnican anywhere who would turn down corporate welfare when it's offered.

But with that comes regulation. And plenty of it.

Obama has done more positive in four months than Tush did in 8 years, and has the Repugnican Reich crapping their pants.

I am relishing this moment, and hope we get more of the same from Obama, and hope he uses his new Imperial Presidential powers granted him by George Tush to great effect.

It's great seeing a Democrat given so many gifts from repugnicans, and using them so wisely.

Goes to prove that the Tushies were only out for themselves, and had no regard for their own party, what they thought, or what the consequences of their actions were.

That's why you losers are sitting on the sidelines, and will continue to do so. How does it feel being the modern day Whig Party?

[Gistok]

For those with immigrant ancestors, particularly descended from Russian ancestors, if these great grandparents immigrated in the early 20th century to escape the Russian Communist Revolution and it's consequences....it is fascinating to draw the parallels, and, if possible, ask their opinions on the current direction we are taking...I have, and it is astounding.

I'm assuming that's codespeak for Ashkenazi...

[ccbatson]

Lorax...you realize that printing and spending money like this is going to be very painful for all of us, and most devastating for the poorest among us.

"Codespeak"? You have a hard time understanding it Gistok? Or think I am being indirect or cryptic?

[WolverinesA2]

Early polling, if it is any indication, and public outcry [[teas parties, California rejecting tax hikes) seems to point in the direction I suggest.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has Obama's favorability rating at 67%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

Yes, clearly Americans are turning on Obama in massive numbers.

Reality isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

[mjs]

President Bush left behind record debts, record national deficits, growing unemployment, and wars while diminishing our rights. At what point in time will you have buyer's regret, if President Obama has not reversed these vestiges of the Bush administration?

Unemployment should turn around once folks get to a comfortable debt level. March saw consumer debt go down $16.6 billion and April go down $15.7 billion for the two biggest reductions on record. Once that happens, pent up consumer demand will be released as jobs return. Consumer debt will signal the turn around.

I'd guess serious efforts to reign in the deficit spending would come after the next election cycle. At that point, government will be getting increasing revenues and decreasing requests for services from unemployed folks. After people make tough sacrifices to pay down their own debts, they're going to want to know why the feds can't do the same. The Dems will OK tax hikes to pay for the increased services they want to provide and the Republicans will put up minimal Resistance so they can paint the Dems as tax and spend in 2012. The Dems will respond by saying we had to pay down the Bush debts somehow.

We'll be out of Iraq in under 18 months. It will help in our getting out of deficit spending and Obama can negotiate a situation where the reconstruction becomes more international and any social or political issues can be blamed on not being more international earlier. Similar for Afghanistan, but the war on terror will last longer there because the Taliban will continue violence in the region. Conservatives will accuse Obama of not getting us out as promised and liberals will respond that he's doing what needs to be done to contain the Taliban by leading an international effort to assist our allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan in fighting extremists. We'll be providing both countries with weapons, humanitarian aid, and intelligence support, but fewer troops.

Without an investigation into enhanced interrogation, a discussion on why we should respect rights at all may stay off the table for a long time. Lost rights are usually lost forever. The Supreme Court will be a more likely avenue to get some of them back than Congress. It will come down to the fact that Obama won't give up any powers without a way to ensure the next President can't simply reinstate them.

[Lorax]

Lorax...you realize that printing and spending money like this is going to be very painful for all of us, and most devastating for the poorest among us.

"Codespeak"? You have a hard time understanding it Gistok? Or think I am being indirect or cryptic?

Sure, I do realize it, and agree fully, however the Tushies left us no other choice, did they?

Spending is the only way out, and the government is now the investor of last resort.

Yes, it's that bad, Batson.

Your people did this to us, and now we all have to pay the price, you included.