So, how is Obama doing?
 

In another thread ("Why should I vote for McCain") I had the idea that we should have a thread that we could look back on in a few months. Since it seems inevitable that Obama is going to be elected by those who think he's going to be their salvation (i.e. provider) or the agent of some sort of "change" of some unspecified kind, why don't we put some predictions of how he'll be doing in a few months. Then we can resurrect the thread next Spring or Summer and make observations on just how he is doing with the great promises he's made. I'll bookmark the thread, and put a calendar reminder for it on my personal calendar.

So, make a prediction. Take one or more of The Saviour's great promises and tell us what he will have accomplished by, say, May or June. I'd like to ask, please, that we not digress into rebuttals or arguments at this point in time of whatever a poster might predict. Let's just make those predictions, and wait and see what actually happens.

I'll start with a couple.

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase.

I predict that Obama will need to fix the economic issues and the war before he can put forth any major spending plans in good faith.

I predict Obama will select the most diverse cabinet (in terms of race, background, partisanship, etc.) in US History

I predict that Republicans across the internet will seize every opportunity to say "TOLD YOU SO" every time they perceive an Obama let down ;)

I predict that the people who don't like him still won't like him.

I predict that Obama will remain calm and deliberative and will solicit opinions from a wide range of experts on the the enormous challenges that the next president will face as a result of eight years of failed policies and shotgun solutions.

I can't assume Obama will win. Your elections are just too wacky.

I predict the winner will be heavily criticized for not delivering on promises fast enough. If the economy isn't "fixed" within a month (a fantasy to be sure) there will be much hand wringing and apoplexy.

I predict the winner will be both applauded and vilified for spending time overseas on diplomatic excursions.

I predict that the new administration will be discover new "shocking" misadventures of the previous administration. This could be played merely for partisan points or as an excuse to cut back on election promises.

I predict, win or lose, that we're going to see a lot more of Sarah Palin: touring the country as VP and public face of the administration, or as a pundit on TV and radio in opposition.

I predict at least three "OMGZ! Obama's the ANTICHRIST!!!!11!!" threads per week on Tilted.

Prediction? Obama loses, the internet goes nuts, but no one really does anything but protest and we get four more years of bullshit. Despite the fact that, just like the last few elections, there's a mountain of evidence to suggest voter tampering, most sheeple will dismiss it out of hand. Obama will have a lot more votes, probably by a margin of at least 10%, but it won't matter.

President McCain will get my friends in the military killed. President McCain will continue to alienate us from our allies. President McCain will be caught up in several personal scandals. He'll die in his second term, and I'll leave the country for good.

I thought Obama would win by a landslide. But he's too close to the margin of error (in most polls) and it's late in the game. I'm leaning more toward the core of will's assessment:
However, I don't necessarily agree with these sentiments...
I predict McCain by atleast 54% and that he will probably die late in his first term. Palin will loose the general election in 2012.

not being a prophet, even after a few lovely malt beverages, i have no idea what the future will hold.
if obama wins, i think he inherits a shitty situation thanks to the republicans and their idiotic neoliberal worldview. i cannot tell at this point exactly what that situation will look like, any more than you can--things keep changing, as they do. i don't have a particular degree of faith that obama will be able to break with that nitwit socio-economic worldview in a manner that's hard enugh to address the structural crises that the republicans have created (like it or not-neoliberalism crosses party lines--clinton was one of you, the entirety of the republican party was as well--the left/right spectrum that conservatives pretend describes the world is meaningless except as the private language of conservatives--and you know what they say about private languages)...
but i have some hope that he would be able to do that.

i have no hope---at all---at any level---that john mc-cain would be able to deal with the problems that he will have to address straight away. i have no reason--at all--to think that a "maverick" republican whose maverickness consisted in supporting the bush administration 90% of the time will be able to think far enough outside the ideology that 3 months ago he endorsed enough to deal with the problems created by that ideology.

i just don't buy the arguments he floats.
i dont believe him, i dont believe his campaign. i think mc-cain is a direct route onto the shoals. go there if you want, but i want no part of it.

There is no way to predict if an Obama administration and a Democratic majority Congress will be successful given the enormous challenges they will face.

It appears the American people are ready to provide them with the opportunity, given the failures of the Republicans over the last eight years.

At the very least, I do believe it will be much more transparent and much less of a president operating on the very edge of Constitutional authority.

I believe the right wing will hound him every step of the way, not letting him govern.
Until a crisis will arise and Obama will be called upon to rise above the trite and
become transcendant.
Will he or won't he? I hope, for all our sakes, he does. And I'm Canadian.
If McCain wins, the left has proven far less capable at causing the machinery of Gov't
to stop, so a lot of right wing rhetoric and empty BS will continue.
I can only hope he shows himself to be at least somewhat the man I believed him to
be in 2000.
Anyways, it looks like you need Democrats to come in, save your economy, and then
leave show the Republicans can take credit for it. Like usual.

I'm with you Will, but I do believe that Obama will win. The votes will actually count this time around but only, and obviously so, because the reps don't want to touch the next 4 years (at least) with a ten foot pole.

I predict that Obama will lose a lot of his popularity simply because it'll be his job to announce exactly how fucked we are. Wearing the straight jacket of the last eight years, he won't be able to perform all of the magic tricks he's promised and he'll of course be criticized for it.

His presidency will improve our relationship with the rest of the world, we'll be nudged further toward energy independence and bettering the environment, he'll eventually accomplish some of what he's proposed but many of the changes will be cosmetic.

Things will be different but still very much the same. We'll continue to make like the Romans and the Corporate States of America will continue to chug along.

From my perspective (across the oceanic divider) I can't help wonder how a 72 year old man, whom (as I understand it from the media) has had several encounters with cancer and ,as the Life Expectancy in the USA is somewhere near the middle to late seventies, stats wise might not even make it till the end of this term is still in the running? Don't get me wrong as a foreigner it is hard for me to judge American politics and society, but there has to be a younger more viable option among 305,500,000 Americans?

As for Barrack Obama. Yes Obama is a liberal (so what it is a democracy, isn't it. Land of the free and so), most conservatives will say the same of Bill Clinton (who left the Oval Office with a surplus on the balance). So being a liberal does not exclude a good economic policy.

As for his legacy in a couple of months/years? Fox will hound him (like they did Clinton), depending on the Senate and Congress elections they will try to block him, there will be a large mess to clean up (economy, foreign affairs, Iraq, Afghanistan, but also what to do with Cuba when Fidel kicks the bucket) and he will have to unite a (seemingly) divided country.

I don't think it matters who wins there will be a lot of issues to deal with. Pro-life, guns, gay marriage all have the potential to create or enlarge a divide. I don't envy the candidates, nor you lot for who have to choose between now and the 4th.

For the record I did a Dutch poll on issues and turns out I am 88% Obama, not weird since I am from that liberal hell hole called the Netherlands

I suggest anyone wondering how things will end up if McCain wins should read Rober Heinlein's Revolt in 2100.

This thread (and really this whole election) is starting to remind me of an old Dilbert cartoon.

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000...3661.strip.gif

I think the Dow will rise on the day after Election day. Not that that will change anything...

I think it will too. Clearly the issue of the economy is what has pushed Obama's numbers up over the past month, so I would assume that Obama winning the election would provide a boost in consumer confidence, at least in the short term

Predictions:

1: Obama will win. McCain and his handlers have run an absolutely numbnutted fustercluck of a campeign, and Obama's appeal to the Pay My Way Club is too broad-based for him to lose at this point.


2: Within the first year, I and my family will be unemployed. We own/run a successful small business, and we -cannot- sustain that business with 2x-3x MORE of our paychecks and company money running out the door. Additionally, we're gun dealers, which brings me to...

3: Victim Disarmament. LOTS of it. HR1022 will come out of committee and be passed by the Democratic majority and signed (if needed) by President Obama. This will make nearly every semiautomatic firearm in the country illegal (if you own a C-96 Mauser or Bergmann, consider yourself lucky), along with 90% of my inventory. That's not counting, of course, the -total- ban on sidearms that Sen. Obama has supported in the past, or the fact that his idea of "reasonable restriction" was the Washington DC ban which the Supremes recently struck down, or his support for banning virtually every centerfire rifle round in existence.

4: Inflation & Depression: Where's the money gonna come from? All these "changes" the good Senator is talking about are damned expensive, people, and since 40% of the country already pays no taxes and Obama's promising a tax-cut for 95% of the population...where's that money gonna come from? "The other five percent! Right. Sure. Maybe if you take everything they own, that's if you can stop them from moving to St. Kitts and taking their toys with them. Just like the bailout, it's going to have to come down to printing money. Or, I suppose he could always borrow it from the Chinese, if they'll still loan us so much as a cup of sugar.

dunedan: my brother runs a successful small business, supports obama, is informed about the policies he actuall advocates and runs out a scenario for small business that has not resemblance to yours. why do you suppose that is?

on guns---i think obama supports local gun control. hell, i support that. i've lived in cities for a very long time and see no reason why urban spaces should NOT have strict controls over guns. but i don't see the same need for it applying everywhere. i don't think obama does either (dc put up some good posts about this question)---so i don't see the basis for your position on that either.

on the last point---what you're running into is the outline of your own economic views mapped onto obama. i don't see anything like the scenario you outline as happening. but this is obviously the diciest area, because the mutation of capitalism that seems to be underway could go in any number of directions and coping with change is not something that any system does terribly well. so on taxation, the main change is a reversal of republican tax breaks for the wealthy because the famous "trickle down" theory has been demonstrated empirically to have been not worth the napkin laffer drew his curve on. there are a host of areas that could be transformed---i maintain (speaking entirely for myself here) that the republicans have used bloated, obscene levels of military spending as a way of diverting tax revenues into the economy by way of the faction of the capitalist order that most consistenty supports the party--you know, patronage--and that an enormous amount of money could come from ending the candy binge of unnnecessary shiny high-tech toys for the military. a rethink of what the military is and what it's role is needs to happen--the cold war logic, which the reagan period simply extended and which has been extended since--except for the fact that the republicans saw the draft as anathema (the one thing they seemed to have learned from vietnam)...there are all kinds of other areas that can be rethought. the period of conservative domination may well be over---i hope it is--good riddance---and maybe it will be possible to develop a saner social system for that.

end political part===========================

i suspect that while you may not like what appears to be coming politically, you'll end up better off that you think you will.
at least i hope that's the case.
i seriously hope that your predictions for yourself and your family are wrong.
political differences aside, no-one wants to see others suffer, particularly not if they're linked by a sense of community, no matter how curious that community might be.
i hope you're wrong, sir.
best of luck and try not to worry so much.

Another post in this forum shoots down most of your claims about Obama's stances on guns

And his associations, endorsements, and voting record speak for themselves. HR1022 is real, and would put us out of business, along with nearly every other gun-dealer in the country. Where is this thread, I'd love to see this "debunking."


Edit: Found it. This is a pile of crap. Allow me to respond in detail.
From FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

First off, "Sportsmen." The 2nd Amendment a'int about sports, period, The End. Secondly, there is no such bloody thing as the "gun-show loophole." It doesn't exist. It's a figment of Sarah Brady's imagination. What she's metamorphosing into a convenient and scary straw-man is the right of normal people to sell a firearm in a private sale, not for profit. It's like buying a used car. Thirdly, as it relates specifically to me, a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, especially in the form of HR1022 (which Obama supports) would put us clean out of business. We can't all sell Kreighoffs to John Kerry, you know.

This is perhaps a mischaracterization; what they should have said was that Obama wanted it to remain a crime to use a firearm in self-defense. He didn't even want the possibility of an affirmative defense out there!

These handguns are neither few nor uncommon. They exist in huge numbers and are chambered in everything from .218 Bee to .500 Nitro Express. While I'm unaware of a specific AP loading in .500NE, if past history is any guide, one will be invented. What most people outside the gun industry don't realise is that the BATF&E can unilaterally declare something "armor piercing" when it isn't, can unilaterally declare what had previously been a legal "sporting-purpose" weapon an illegal "non-sporting-purpose" weapon, and all this at the stroke of a pen. Give them an inch, they'll take five miles.

Granted, this one's a bit of a stretch. But I don't trust slimballs like Kennedy to keep their promises, and I don't trust poll-chasers like Obama to leave something alone if it'd be popular to muck around with it.

This restates Obama's alleged current position. Even this is insane, but one must consider that the original survey in question had Obama's signature. Either he's lying, or he signs things without looking at them, and I don't want Col. Henry Blake for a President, thanks. The proposals above are rediculous enough; civil liability alone would be a disaster. Sarah Brady, Mike Bloomberg, and their dispicable ilk would be more than happy (and have more than enough money) to sue ever gunmaker and importer in this country clean out of business. They've been trying for several years now, and a wide-open license like this would kill the industry. It's a backdoor gun-grab.

See, here's the thing. It ALREADY HAPPENS. About 2-5 times a year, we get a call from the ATF Tracing Center in Atlanta, GA. They ask for information pertaining to a certain gun. We look it up in our records and call them back. This happens when a gun falls into the hands of Law Enforcement for some reason (we never know why) and some LEO someplace is trying to figure out where the gun went, or came from. Everything needed to trace guns already exists, more's the pity. What he's talking about, the Tiehart Amendment, is a law that prevents local LEOs from going on fishing expeditions in federal firearms records. The gun-grabbers want this revoked, thankfully they've so far been unsuccessful. I'd rather not have my shop used as a blackmail/gossip factory by our idiot Depputies, thanks.


Well, that says it all right there. I'm not going to debate the virtues of concealed carry here, though.

The "renewal" of the AWB that he's referencing here is HR1022, the oft-mentiond and never-to-be-sufficiantly-damned horror mentioned above. It radically expands the AWBs scope to include a whole lot more Scary Black Guns (which are rarely used in crime), banning virtually every semi-auto of any description. Nice bit of wordplay, factcheck, but try checking your facts next time.

Well, did he say it or didn't he? And isn't "no comment" universally understood to be PolSpeak for "Yes I did it, but I'm not gonna admit it"?

See above.

Factcheck seems to be awfully short of facts, and not very inclined to check things either. And I can unequivocally state that if even half of this passed or became a nationwide trend, we would be out of business. So would 90% of the FFLs in this country.

What do I think?
I'm honestly so astonished that no one has mentioned this...I think if Obama is elected, within six months he will be assassinated. It's a horrible thing, but I honestly think that is a reality in the world today.

The Dow will drop tremendously. Small business owners, "Joe the Plumber" and others will be out of jobs. The economy will fail. My parents will lose much of what they have worked their entire lives for because they fit into the greater than $250,000.00/yr bracket.

I'm hoping that doesn't happen (Obama getting elected). That's just my prediction.
Glad I gave my vote to McCain and canceled out one of the Obama votes.

How were your parents doing under Reagan? I ask because they were taxed more under Reagan than they will be under Obama's plan.

If Obama is elected, within a year Newt Gingrich will release a book about the faile d Obama administration.

If the economy improves, Rush Limbaugh will claim that it is due to the policies enacted by W.

"Don't Blame Me, I voted For McCain" stickers will show up if any little thing goes wrong. A few snot ass kids will make "Don't Blame Me, I voted For Nader" stickers.

"Real Americans" will move to Canada. Sorry Canada! We still love your ale and dry.

Somebody, somewhere will write a manifesto about the n's and shoot up or bomb a government building because that's how retards handle losing.

Your parents will do just as well as they did under Clinton? Did they lose much of what they worked for?

You bought the hype.

BTW, your vote only canceled out another vote in Texas, which willl have no impact on the election.

Mine is just a prediction. Wasn't this supposed to be guesses without some negative response from other posters? Clinton was a disaster anyway. I'm done with this thread...better get to class.

clinton was a disaster in what respects?
please don't rehash conventional limbaugh "wisdom" on this--give specifics.

i was not a fan of clinton in many respects (but for reasons that i suspect have nothing whatever to do with yours), but i would not qualify his administration as a disaster in any non-mythological sense of the term, particularly not when you butt it up against either reagan or bush 2...

Pointing out the facts is not a negative response.

facts like the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a) not a plumber, b) not a small business owner and c) doesn't make anything close to $250,000?

okay, I"ll stop now

Not that it really has much to do with anything, but the vilification of this guy by the Obama campaign and the media is unreasonable.

a) Joe the plumber is a plumber who operates under his employers license. He is prepping for his master's rating which will allow him to own a plumbing business.
b) The hypothetical scenario that he posed was "if" he was to someday buy the business from his current employer.
c) He never stated that he earned $250,000, but that the business he spoke of someday owning (in his question to Obama) could generate revenues of $250,000 or more.

With Republican "shill" conspiracy accusations and wild speculation about someone asking some honest unscripted questions, it sounds more and more like this thread belongs in Tilted Paranoia.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/...3b1f2dc1_m.jpg

the point is that "Joe the Plumber" is now the poster boy for small business owner, and much of what the McCain speeches are saying about Obama's policies on small business are flat out lies. Fact Check has all the details, but anyone who thinks that an Obama administration is going to mean the death of every small business in the country is clearly not operating with facts. To that point, i think it's pretty hilarious that people think the GOP is on the side of the little guy...

saying that the "joe the plumber" figure is a shill is not exactly a conspiracy---it's more a simple statement of fact.

it is strange that the republican have put perfectly reasonable folk in the position of having to live in counter-factuals as a way of maintaining support. if i were a conservative, that would piss me off to no end.

Yeah, that whole greatest peacetime expansion of the economy was horrible.

Look, his first interaction with Obama was brilliant. I loved the guy, and I loved Obama's response.

Since then, it's the Republicans who have turned him into some sort of media monkey, and have taken four words completely out of context in a desperation hail-mary to save a dead campaign.

If you listen to EVERYTHING Obama said to Joe, the McCain/Palin distortions become very clear.
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 10 : 47 : 57-----
Seriously. Who do they think they money would get spread TO??

otto....there is no conspiracy....McCain made him an issue....first by invoking his name a dozens times in the last debate and now bringing him into the campaign.

Joe the plumber is now an official shill, campaigning with McCain in Ohio yesterday, where he and McCain both agreed with a supporter that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death to Israel.”


So Joe is now a foreign policy expert.

One can only wonder what brilliant pearl of wisdom he will offer today on the campaign trail with McCain in Florida.

Just another example of how completely clueless the McCain campaign is. Do they really believe that having Joe appear w/McCain or speak at campaign events will help attract swing voters?
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 12 : 12 : 33-----
Joe is now considering running for Congress in 2010

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_duG3nvrkE6...aveAmerica.jpg

draftjoetheplumber

I can tell you what Obama is doing for me. He is making me excited to vote for the first time in my life.

Wow, even Fox News says this is getting frightening. That's really saying something. 'Joe' doesn't say anything and he completely dances around the subject even though Obama has made his stance perfectly clear time and time again. And even then, if Obama did have a talk with Ahmadinejad or anyone else, that can be construed as bringing the death of Israel? Seriously? God, these people scare the shit out of me and truly make me think there is no hope for America.

He even said, 'I probably know just enough to be dangerous'. He's damn right the shit he's saying is dangerous but not because he knows anything at all about foreign policy. The only thing that he seems to know about foreign policy is that there are people outside of the United States and sometimes we have relations with them 'foreigners'. Ugh.

Obama: "By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in Kindergarten."

Pollster.com - 2008 Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis


click on this:
11:54
Obama: "I’m sorry to see my opponent sink so low"

in the box on the right side of the page.

Might I point out the negative affects your words have on future voters of this country? Why would someone my age who is undecided about taking the time and effort to vote want to after hearing comments like "oh well you're vote doesn't matter since your state is Republican." What the hell man. That's essentially the exact argument telling people their vote won't count. Even if my vote doesn't change the way the state will go it is setting up an example to be a good citizen.

Wake up...

I don't know how much more than $250k your parents make (nor is it my business), but take a look at this chart and see what they'll pay:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...8061200193.gif

I would never say, and have never said, that anyone's vote doesnt count. I encourage people vote for the candidate of their choice...but not to "cancel out" a vote for the other candidate because in most states, thats just not the case.

I also hope that future voters of the country will be open to the facts on the candidates' proposed policies before making sweeping exaggerations.
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 06 : 27 : 38-----
They will pay what they paid before Bush's 01 and 03 tax cuts.....the tax cuts that McCain called "fiscally irresponsible" at the time and which have contributed significantly to the increase in the US debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.

The question that Obama people won't answer - Why do they think a person making $2.87 million or more is going to pay an additional $700,000 in taxes without taking action to minimize that amount? Again, we are talking an addition $700,000, that is 24% of $2.87 million, that is a big motivator to defer income or to restructure income so that it is non-taxable. If they do pay it, that amount equates to a large number of people they won't employ, a large amount they won't reinvest in business growth.

This is the point McCain is trying to make about not raising taxes in a recession. Obama people don't get it and ignore anyone making an attempt to point out the problem or they understand it and lie about it.

Because Obama doesn't believe trickle-down economics works (and there is a pile of data supporting his case), thus the cries of "taxing the rich will kill the economy" ring false for him

Why not answer the question?

Do you think a person making $2.87 million or more is going to just pay an additional $700,000 in taxes?

If they don't what happens to his plan?

Would the person making $18,891 rather have a $567 refundable tax credit or a job?

well, ace, why don't you lay out your thinking rather than try to box your interlocutor into a strange place without having the courtesy to reveal your actual argument? are you saying that this hypothetical millionaire would rather shift assets offshore than pay additional taxes? are you saying the your hypothetical millionaire thinks in the way that you do about taxation, as an affliction that serves only to punish rather than thinking about taxation as a sane person would?

What's with the leading questions?

First, a person making exactly $2.87 million will likely donate some of his or her money, or do some other tax technique, to avoid that higher tax rate.

Also, you're assuming that taxing the wealthy at higher rates automatically means jobs will be lost. What about the jobs created by the middle class' having more disposable income?

Don't you know that the typical millionaire doesn't tend to spend money so much as save it?

Give the middle class more of their money and they tend to spend it.

That's good for the economy.

Again, though, what's with the leading questions? Economics isn't that simple--either/or.

If I had $2.87 million, I'd be happy to pay 24%.

As it is, we barely breach 6 figures and have been paying 36%.

McCain's trickle down plan is ridiculous. Here Mr. 18k, have a dollar, and Mr. Millionaire, you can have back $269,000.

So the poor guy gets a hamburger and the rich guy gets another home.

This is not new. There are many threads where my views on "supply side" or "trickle down" economics have been detailed. My point here simply highlights my on-going frustration regarding the issue. I think anyone who honestly answers the questions will see that Obama's rhetoric is not as simple as it appears. Class warfare and "spreading the wealth around" is going to be a failed strategy for economic growth or increasing the average standard of living of Americans. Economic policy is not implemented in a vacuum, for every action there will be reactions - some planed and others not planed. Good economic policy takes into account the "unplanned" consequences.
-----Added 30/10/2008 at 11 : 58 : 35-----
I like to lead people to a conclusion.

True, but they will also do other things. But the next question is what happens to Obama's plan when they do things to reduce the increased burden? I think Obama will need to increase taxes a lower income levels or cut taxes for the people in the highest brackets.

There will be a combination of results, I think the net result will be a loss of jobs all other things being equal.

Most "rich" people invest, they put capital to work. This is how progress is made - "rich" people investing in the future or taking some risks. Take T Boone Pickens as an example, even as an old billionaire he is not invested in CD's, is he. He is betting on alternative energy, and is putting his money on the line. His plan will create jobs.

True, but we also need is money to be invested in economic growth.

I keep it simple because of the fact that very few here will even acknowledge the fact that supply side economics will have an impact even if marginal tax rates are at 100% and then cut.

no one is spreading any wealth around. I don't expect a check to come in the mail that contains money taken from a wealthy person.

ace...I acknowldege that supply side economics has an impact.

It contribututes to the nation's debt in record amounts...first in the 80s, when we experienced the greatest debt increase in the nation's history (the debt increase in the Reagan years surpassed the total debt increase of all prior presidents combined) ...

....only to be surpassed by the second supply side experiment over the last eight years where the debt has increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion and anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 attributed to the impact of the Bush tax cuts

Me too, but that is not the point. The point is if you had $2.87 million and an easy opportunity to pay less than 24%, would you?

I think our tax code is screwed up and needs major change. I would not tax income, savings and investment, I would tax consumption.

Again, I think the point is for the $18k guy, have an opportunity to make more. If the $2.87 million guy builds a house and is willing to pay the $18k guy $60k to be a carpenter on his new house, everyone wins. the $18k guy makes real money, gets additional marketable job experience and maybe able to buy his own home. The $500 credit does nothing, but buys a few weeks of food. I am not saying the money is not meaningful, but I think in the long-term making more money is a better way to go.
-----Added 30/10/2008 at 12 : 07 : 51-----
Where do you think the money will come from?
-----Added 30/10/2008 at 12 : 12 : 01-----
Obama's plan shows a bottom line net cut (-$160, adding to the deficit/debt), isn't that a form of supply side economics? Isn't the real difference just in terms of who is getting the tax cut? What happened to pay as you go?

And, what is going to happen to the Obama plan when "rich" people do things to reduce the increased tax burden?

Rich people already do those things. Heck, we do that.

What will happen if they put more compensation in tax free plans? Those plans will hopefully make more money in an economy not headed up by chimpy the president. People will or should always defer as much income as possible, but one way or another, the money makes it to the market.

Taxing consumption has always been a theory, one that doesn't show signs of being able to pay for our country. At any rate, consumption is already taxed in most places. DC residents are heavily taxed, and yet have no representation.

I think what we're arguing are hypothetical ideas when we can't really prove either way until we see what happens. Its almost pointless to argue, but informative to discuss.

In my opinion, I see about half the "rich" taking the tax hike in stride. I see the other half avoiding it. However, their avoiding is not bad. When a rich person puts money into assets to avoid taxation, that money then circulates through the economy. A rich person has the choice of either giving their money directly to the government or using their money to increase their own wealth while putting it back into the economy.

Also, as stated before, the middle class with more money to spend, will spend it.

I think ace's argument is focusing mainly on personal income tax as the government's only form of income. I personally feel like diversifying the sources of income for the government (by releasing a hold on the income tax) is a good thing.

I think the Democrats have a better grasp on republicanism than the Republicans do.

No one is giving me anybody's wealth. I'm keeping more of my income. These things are different. Obama's plan is about income, not wealth. If some rich person has $10billion in savings account somewhere, nobody is touching it. Either way, wealth isn't being redistributed.

i dont think there's any way for someone who views things economic from ace's viewpoint to get his or her head around the ongoing situation. one aspect of what i take obama to be proposing is a series of new-dealish programs geared at getting folk to work in decent paying situations on infrastructure projects. this would require a redirecting of resources. there are a host of arguments as to why this redirect would be a good and desirable thing--but all of them assume that you can think about taxation as a mechanism for moving money from one area of the social system to another in order to accomplish political and/or economic and/or social system goals. it seems that from the supply-sider viewpoint, there is no social system--remember margaret thatcher's fanous quip "when i look around me i do not see society, i see individuals"....

this is the differend (the point of talking-past each other) that inevitably turns up in this sort of discussion--ace does not EVER relativize his position enough to entertain the possibility that his way of thinking is PARTICULAR, but expects others to relativize their positions enough to engage with his. this is why he cannot outline his own premises--it's almost like there are not premises because there are not arguments because this is how things *are* for him.

i do not find discussion in good faith to be possible under these rules of engagement.

This is not entirely correct. In order for the economy to grow, money needs to be put to productive use. The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire is because he is a master at allocating capital in a manner that is most productive and maximizes the return.

Moving away from theory, and using a personal experience. I know a very wealthy man who helped a person he knew start a business from scratch. The wealthy man invested money (capital) and the other person had the idea and was willing to invest labor. The wealthy man had the opportunity to invest in low yielding fixed income investments or anything else. We do know that even investing in low yeilding fixed investments as compared to more productive uses, will eventually have a positive impact on the economy, but the impact will be made smaller due to a number of factors including the fact that most financial institution will not loan out 100% of the money the have available and in some cases it would be illegal for them to do that. We also know, based on our current crisis, that financial institutions may not always lend money to people who have the ability to use the money properly and pay it back - meaning the money gets wasted.

So, this business that is started initially employs one person, and overtime employs more people. This business provides a valuable service, pays taxes, buys supplies, rents office space, opens bank accounts, buys insurance, etc,etc,etc. The business establishes a track record and has value. Value that is created based on the investment of capital and labor. The person who started the business passed away, and his surviving spouse puts the business up for sale, and I buy it.

In order to buy the business, I basically invest my life savings, and was able to negotiate a note from the wealthy guy because he did not need the cash right away. The widow of the guy who sold the business will live comfortably the rest of her life because her husband started something from nothing with the help of the wealthy guy.

So if you are still with me - the wealthy guy by putting his capital to work in a productive maner, created a large number of jobs, paid much more in taxes through the bussiness than if he had purchased a few tax free municipal bonds, caused an increase in money circulating through the business' operating expenses, and he helped create wealth for the family of the person who started the business and some others.

So now I own the business and I leave my corporate job (creating employment for another), my wife leaves her corporate job and our goal is to grow the business, to employ even more, to pay more taxes, to have higher operating expenses, etc., again thanks to the wealthy guy.

The first year I own the business, we make no money, we reinvest in the business and actually incur more debt. In the years after, we start to realize some of our growth goals, payoff most of the debt and start to make a profit. However, if I divide what I have taken out of the business by my time, my wife and I have been making less than minimum wage. At the end of many years we have had a few laughs over the fact that some of the people we employed actually made more than we did. At some point that will change, and after all the work, all we have done, all the taxes, etc, I personally find it offensive to hear from a person who never had to meet a payroll talk about "spreading the wealth around". But our goal is to be in the position of the person who helps us, the person who helped get the business started, the "rich" guy. So, again, if I realize my goal, I will help others realize theirs - again all thanks to the "rich" guy and perhaps there was a "rich" guy who help him. Again we are talking about creating wealth, real wealth, employing real people, paying real taxes. It is not a shell game, trickle down economics works, I live it.

So, the "rich" can invest in corporate bonds and create virtually no new jobs and do nothing for economic growth or they can use their capital to directly create new wealth. Government does not do this, big business does not do this, and poor people do not do this. I say let "rich" people use the judgment that got them rich to help others. People in Washington, Trust Fund Babies, big corporate employees, academic types, generally don't know what they are talking about on this subject.
-----Added 30/10/2008 at 02 : 51 : 15-----
I don't determine the "rules". I post what I post, and other respond (or ignore) based on what they want. Your premise that I some how define the "rules" is absurd on its face. If your point expresses a frustration with interacting with me, that is different. Like I have said many times before, I know it is not easy. I look to those up to the challenge to challenge me. I often post things for my own benefit because I know what types of responses will follow.

Interesting analysis, ace. But you're missing pieces out of the picture--namely the role of the middle class and their financial security and spending habits. They are dependent on one another.

The middle class is struggling because of things like health care and other expenses. Expenses that would be alleviated by reducing their taxes. Expenses that could be better shouldered by those with the resources to shoulder them.

And it's interesting you should mention Warren Buffett:


He's referring to Clinton and Obama in this clip.

I simply suggest we have a fair tax system. A tax system designed to address the intended role of government as defined in our Constitution. There are many reasons why people struggle, in many cases government makes the struggle harder. Health care is example of that, there are many threads on health care so I won't go into that here. The differences are clear between Democrats and Republicans, even if leaders of both parties have a tendency to think the answer to our problems will come from Washington, Democrats are much more extreme and Obama has never discussed a problem that did not have a big government solution.

I respect Buffet as a business person and as a person who will use his wealth for good after he dies. Other than that he is a ruthless business man who does and says what is in his interest. Some of the recent deals he has made clearly illustrates that. He is a person that will not pay a dime more in taxes than he chooses to pay, and in the end his wealth will not go to government, he has carefully selected the charities he wants his wealth to go to. If he really had faith in big government he would leave his money to the IRS, he is not doing that.

the problem is no one will ever agree what is "fair". i've done a lot of research on the "Fair Tax" system recently and don't like it at all. other people swear by it.

As a matter of fact he has. He says all the time that people need to take responsibility for their own lives and 'tighten their belts' financially and be more fiscally responsible. He has said that the government is just there to basically be a helping hand in taking control of our own lives.

Buffett himself thinks he pays too little tax, and he blames the system:

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary

Ace, can you expand on your thoughts on the fair tax system? How do your thoughts on tax compare to Buffett's?

Why is a guy as wealthy as Buffett so keen on having more money in the pockets of the poor, even if it is at his expense? Simple: he knows it's good for the economy.

As a response to ace (this may have been said already): It is not an additional 24%. It is an additional 11%. You're taking the average increase of the entire top .1% income (which is 2.87 AND HIGHER) and saying its applied to the bottom. Not true. Someone at that line will take approximately $315,000 more in taxes (an 11% increase).

We been through this in more details in another thread. But as Buffett blasts our tax system, he takes full advantage of it. In 2007 his net worth increased somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion (using round numbers). He paid no tax on that increase in his wealth. He pays himself a modest salary, which is taxed like the rest of us. The rest of his income most likely comes from sources outside of his company and is immaterial relative to his wealth. His company pays no dividends and never has, no taxes paid. He does not sell any shares in his company and never has, no capital gains taxes. He is going to leave his billions to charity when he dies - no death taxes. However, he can live whatever lifestyle he chooses, he owns a private jet rental company, all travel is company paid. He is like a rock star and can get whatever freebies he wants in exchange for appearances - generally not taxed. He owns Dairy Queen - life time supply of soft-serve ice cream, etc., etc., etc., if he wanted to pay more taxes he could.

I am not a specific advocate of any particular plan at this point. I just think taxing a persons labor, savings and investments is wrong and that the right thing to tax is consumption or the usage of certain government services. If a person lives like a billionaire let them be taxed like one. I think in a consumption based tax system it can be set up to minimize the impact on the consumption of basic needs like food, heat, medical, etc. But on the other hand if a person is going to spend $80,000 for an SUV with money from some un-taxed spource (i.e. - illegal activities) perhaps they should pay accordingly.

People who are already "rich", generally want to stay "rich". Aggressive business people generally want to limit competition. Policies designed to help "rich" people stay "rich" and restrict competition in the market are not good for people who want to become "rich". Buffett can take the position of enjoying his wealth and take populist positions while not risking anything. If he really believes what he says, he can write the IRS a check anytime he wants. In fact taking populist positions is good for his businesses - he wants people to buy more Coke, he doesn't want them to make competing bids for GE preferred stock.

Thanks for the response, ace.

Buffett is certainly taking advantage of the system, but that's the kind of thinking that got him rich in the first place. But that isn't stopping him from wanting to change the system for the benefit of others apparently.

I doubt there are many other rich people (certainly not nearly as rich as him, even) who will donate their entire estate to charity upon their death. Buffett doesn't want change for this own case; he wants it for America. If he's donating his wealth to charity, he's leading by example, not necessarily for the prime purpose "exploiting" the tax system.

But that would only be a one-off. He wants to change the system for everyone. He wants it to work even after his death. He's giving his money to charity, remember? Why write a cheque to the IRS? The problem isn't with him; it's with others. One man's wealth isn't going to help America's poorest in the long run.

Buffett is a smart man in more ways than one.

If we want to be precise we can look at the current top marginal rate compared to the top marginal rate under Obama. the tax Foundation did a review of this.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFil...150figure3.jpg

The Tax Foundation - How Do the Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans Affect Taxpayers’ Marginal Tax Rates?

My question remains - Why do you think a person with cost effective options to avoid additional taxes going to pay them? People in the top .1% hirer high powered people to advise them on legally minimizing tax obligations. The Obama plan is based on an assumption people will pay the higher taxes without taking actions to minimize the increased burden. When "rich" people do things to minimize the increased burden, what is Obama going to do?

Do you think Obama and his team haven't already thought of that? Maybe they're banking on the idea that people will reduce their taxable income by investing into the economy. Maybe that's a part of his plan to bolster the economy: more money in the hands of the middle class and more investment in the national economy by the wealthy avoiding increased taxes.

It's all about incentives.

I dunno. I just thought of that.

I actually like Buffett, I want to be just like him. After I make my first billion I will become an advocate for higher taxes, until then...:thumbsup:
-----Added 31/10/2008 at 11 : 37 : 25-----
I don't know, but it would have been nice if someone asked the question so he could have addressed it. If he has I am not aware of his answer.

You know, my knowledge of real economic issues and theories is nothing compared to many around here, let alone in the world at-large. However, isn't assuming that the wealthy will invest their money in the economy the definition of trickle-down economics, which so many seem to disagree with?

Obviously I could be misunderstanding this, so if I am, please be kind :lol:

HEHE

So much for consumer confidence on day one?

He looks older already.

I retain hope.

Trickle down economics doesnt create jobs...it never has.

It only lines the pockets of the top taxpayers and adds to the national debt.

The latest unemployment figures after eight years of Bush trickles- 6.5 percent and expected to grow to about 8%...the highest since Reagan, the last time trickle down was the policy.
-----Added 8/11/2008 at 09 : 14 : 00-----
I dont think we will see the consumer confidence rise much until Obama takes office. He is in the difficult position of not being too critical of the Bush policy.

We did see the general outline of his economic plan in his press conference.....to create jobs...and you dont accomplish that, at least in the short term, through tax policy.

Numbers are in from after election, looks like the business world was really pleased with the election of Barry.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Hopefully things improve quickly.

I think the business world is still displeased with Bush.

Though if the market did plunge immediately following the election of someone who isn't going to be in power for ~2 months, well, that kind of puts another few bullet holes in the carcass of the notion that the marketplace is rational.

Incidentally, I think Obama is a little indulgent when it comes to all the seals. Did I see correctly when I saw that he has one for the office of the president elect?

Do you think the latest one day drop in the Dow (not the first in the last few months) might be more a reaction to the announcement of new unemployment figures that day....the worst in 14 years?

Or note that the market was way UP on election day--and it's been attributed to "early celebration of an Obama victory"?

This is what the next four years will be like, hunh? I completely admit that we were sore losers like this in 2004. Were we this bad in 2000?

The figures could have contributed. It's not that big of a stretch, pretty much everybody knew it would happen if Barry was elected.

250,000 people lost their job in Oct..and over 1 million for the year...because Obama was elected?

so wait---gm and ford post numbers that indicate their each about a quarter away from disappearing, the unemployment figures are the worst in years, there's sales data showing such a marked slowdown in consumer indulgence that there's fears of deflation---and the stock market downturn on wednesday (which was erased in the subsequent 2 days) is a function of obama, not because there's any reason to make that link, but because the link is a foregone conclusion because "everybody knew" on sunday afterward that the previous wednesday the market tank would happen and would know why....

this is such a goofy argument, i don't know why i bothered to transcribe it.

Rush is calling it the "Obama recession"....so it must be true.

Obama Recession in Full Swing

what makes you think this problem is based on "confidence"?
Even assuming that a president being elected, who hasn't even taken office yet, has some sort of power relation to the economy, or even granting that the president in office has a direct effect on the economy, none of this fixes the problem of consumers lacking liquid assets to spend and producers lacking ready markets to capture.


I'm not sure of Ace's point regarding the Picket Plan. It's not "betting" on renewable energy at all. Natural gas is the centerpiece of the plan, it's not renewable at all and it's a commodity Pickens intends to sell. The plan may or may not be a good plan, but it's not a risky venture. If it was capitalism as Ace envisions it, then why doesn't someone, Pickens himself ideally, convert a fleet of vehicles, build the infrastructure for natural gas fueling stations, and then sell off the technology?

No, instead he writes a plan and asks the people to push the government to fund it. WTF? How is that anything like capitalism that rewards the good ideas and penalizes the failed ones? If it works, the billionaire who sponsors it and sells his commodity, if it fails the public subsidizes the loss.


And what's this about job creation and the tax rate? An economic sector can only grow so large. Taco Bell can only sell so many tacos, and that's what determines how many employees they hire, not whether their tax rate is 1% or 75%. Anything <100% of their profit is gain, so even if some people become unhappy about not making as much, no sane person would up and leave or stop producing because they make less profit than they did before so long as there is profit to be made at all.

The argument seems to shift to the idea that companies that are still employing people in the US are doing so because of the Bush tax rates? That just seems preposterous on its face, but I could see why the wealthy make the argument...I just don't understand how others believe it.

Well, he's been president for a little bit less than an hour now and nothing has changed. I hate to say I told you so, but his presidency has clearly failed to change anything. Just more business as usual.














No really. I look forward to this thread evolving throughout the next four years. It can be like the threads about "Lost": Obama presidency discussion thread *contains spoilers*. I wish we had a thread like this dealing with the Iraq war-- it would have been interesting to see how people's opinions changed throughout the ensuing debacle.

Obama's doing pretty good so far. I hope his speechwriters are well paid.

The man gives a great speech. I had shivers, at times. I just can't be too cynical about him yet.

the shit's hitting the fan again in the banking sector...the televisual apparatus has been focusing your attention on the rituals of transition, but the disaster visited upon us by the neo-liberal counter-revolution doesn't seem to want to wait for these rituals to run their course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/bu...gewanted=print

we're about 3 1/2 hours in and the administration is in a tough position---very significant, very complicated, quite long-term problems require action and very quickly in some cases.

it did not help that the bush people went entirely passive over the past months, even as, given the idiocy of their policies in the main and the catastrophic results of them---one of which was an undermining of the political legitimacy of the bush administration so that passivity was perhaps the only option---maybe from a certain viewpoint that wasn't entirely a bad thing.


but it's a shame obama is not given time to even really adjust to the new reality he's in.
we're already in it.

Well folks, I haven't been around for quite a while but I just had to come back to this thread I started last October. My intent was to get a few predictions down and see what might actually happen. It's been interesting, hasn't it? My original post:

"In another thread ("Why should I vote for McCain") I had the idea that we should have a thread that we could look back on in a few months. Since it seems inevitable that Obama is going to be elected by those who think he's going to be their salvation (i.e. provider) or the agent of some sort of "change" of some unspecified kind, why don't we put some predictions of how he'll be doing in a few months. Then we can resurrect the thread next Spring or Summer and make observations on just how he is doing with the great promises he's made. I'll bookmark the thread, and put a calendar reminder for it on my personal calendar.

So, make a prediction. Take one or more of The Saviour's great promises and tell us what he will have accomplished by, say, May or June. I'd like to ask, please, that we not digress into rebuttals or arguments at this point in time of whatever a poster might predict. Let's just make those predictions, and wait and see what actually happens.

I'll start with a couple.

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase."

So, how's that change workin' out for ya?

So what's your point? That you were wrong?

No "point," really. Arguing with Liberals has proven to be pointless. I'm just having a good laugh.

mcgeedo, try arguing with facts. You know, knowledge.

Tilted Politics isn't just for having a good laugh; Tilted Humor can be found here:
Tilted Humor - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

I now invite you to make a point. How is Obama doing?

i would assume from the singular vacancy of re-entry that the thread was set up as a tautology: because obama is not a conservative, he cannot possibly do anything. only conservatives, geniuses of industry, friends of the children, conquerors of happiness, heroes of nations, only conservatives do things. i mean look around: see all the fine achievements of the past 8 bloody years. it's hard for anyone to manage autonomous agendas in the face of the multiple giant sucking sounds left behind by the right's last period of screaming across the sky.

As someone who is very cynical about all politicians... I can say now what I also could say in the run up to the election... Obama is the most inspirational political figure in my lifetime. Time will tell whether he up to the job, but in the first 100 days he has done very well.

I think I'd prefer him somewhat over a misanthropic Scot - however much we need a serious man for serious times (although I would admit that "this is no time for a novice" was an utterly superb soundbite)

From my point of view, filtherton and roachboy, he has done pretty much as I had guessed and events have come to pass pretty much as I and some other Conservatives had predicted. Much like Hitler with Mein Kampf, Obama told us who and what he was and he has come through on those things. I am not comparing him to Hilter except in the sense that he told us that he was just this sort of Liberal, and got voted in anyway. Thus my comment "How's that change workin' out for ya." Those of you who voted for him are getting exactly what he advertised. And you even seem happy about it.

My point, baraka, if I must have one in order to post in this particular forum, is that viewpoint means everything. In my world view, Obama threatened to threaten the North Koreans if they launched their little missile, and then went silent when his bluff was called. The Liberals will say (I'm guessing) that he is "improving America's image in the world" by doing things like this. My view point differs, of course. You and I will come to a completely different interpretation of events such as this even though we are reading the same basic facts about the event.

I suppose my original post was intended to be a source of amusement to myself and other Conservatives. Note a joke as such, baraka, just commentary with a little humerous irony. It's a shame that it devolved into a debate instead of my original intention of recording predictions for later discussion. There is no joke; there is a sadness in me regarding what is happening to my country.

I think we've solved the mystery of why you have a hard time arguing with people. Anyone acting under the impression that it is useful to compare someone to Hitler, but you know, not in the holocaust-ey kind of way probably is either intentionally trying to communicate badly, or honestly can't communicate well.

So your point is: "Ha Ha, you liberals are getting exactly what you voted for." Well, I guess you've certainly showed them, haven't you.

Let's look at your predictions:

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

This hasn't happened.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

Anyone with an asshole could have predicted that the DOW would fall. That's like predicting that a conservative republican congressman will be caught in a gay sex scandal. Did you predict that the DOW would rise back up again after he got into office?

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

What, like sniping some pirates? I'm not sure which international crisis you're talking about. I am pretty certain that nothing Obama has done has diminished the stature and standing of the US in a generally agreed upon way. At least not if you ask someone outside of the conservative pundiblog echo chamber.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase.

Not sure what you're getting at here. How have things gotten any worse as a direct result of Obama's actions?

Name one President since Truman that's done anything at all differently.

Hint: you can't.

We have never called their bluff. The sheer weight of the artillery focused on Seoul keeps us from ever doing so. Until they make an openly hostile act (and "launching a satellite" isn't, but "testing a ballistic missle" is), we will never act. If we did, somewhere between 500,000 and 5,000,000 South Koreans would be dead in 2 weeks. So long as they have plausible deniability, there's not much we can do since there are very few realistic alternatives.

Unless you support an invasion and full-blown war, probably with the Chinese on the other side. And, given the current state of affairs, if you are actively endorsing that idea as the best course of action, you're as dumb as most liberals accuse GW Bush of being.

It's so weird, mcgeedo.... I'd SWEAR you're looking at different facts than me. I mean, I really truly do appreciate your point about differing interpretations (and, in fact, it was one of the main things the minority Left has been yelling about in the face of stony Rightness, Faith and Rigidity on the part of the majority Right for the last 8 years). So, I'm glad you're on board with that. But the things you seem to think have happened.... haven't happened. Which leaves me at a loss for how we can even talk about "how Obama is doing".

And Obama did protest the launch of the missile. North Korea is unhappy that we're unhappy with them, threatening to launch more missiles unless we apologize. Do you even read the news?

Wow, didn't expect this thread to be Godwin'd the moment it was bumped

Just for fun :-) a bump

It seems that no one is interested in defending Obama like they did last year. Or it may be that the forum is so much less active than it once was.

Anyway, I was re=reading the thread myself and found the post above about North Korea really funny. I guess Obama really scared the NKs back in May of last year, didn't he?

If you would do more besides "bump" the thread and wax nostalgic about it, maybe people would have more to say.

Why did you bump it besides "for fun"?

To be more accurate, I suppose, it's for the entertainment value of debating with committed Leftists. I harbor no illusions that any argument I may make will magically open a Liberal's eyes to the Conservative point of view. There is humor in listening to someone singing the praises of one who, in my mind, is an utter failure.

It is also educational. Having in mind the old expression "...and hold your enemies closer," it's informative to understand what the Opposition is thinking.

The entertainment comes from the blind faithful. The education comes from the thoughtful. There are (or at least were) both here. I've only recently come back to this venue after an absence of quite a while. It's sad that the forums have become so slow.

To speak to the topic, my original post predicted that the president would be ineffective and a serious disappointment to those who were so enamored of him. I think that's proven to be true.

If you feel that I'm simply trolling, then feel free to ignore me.