63% is no where near 80 to almost 90 as in Reagan. Bush had these same numbers for a long time. Shows nothing.

-S

Don't let it get to you, boss. Emotional political discussions are commonplace here, but they can still be enjoyable. Just do a search on threads with "Bush" in the title and you'll see. No reason to be anything less than civil.

If you'll permit, I'll even answer your stated position right now;
There is a valid cause for concern about President Obama's administration, even though he has not been in office for long. While you claim that "he has done nothing wrong", his stimulus bill says otherwise. He may not have authored it, but he did encourage congress to pass it and he did sign it into law.
One does not simply drop an additional trillion dolllars into circulation without experiencing serious ramifications. And though you would be correct in pointing out that this money will not all be introduced to the money supply at once, it will still be introduced in a very short period of time. Some of this money is being borrowed and some of it will be printed, but all of it will decrease the value of the dollar.

Now, assuming that you care to know, I'll be more than happy to provide fairly current figures on the U.S. money supply, GDP, GDP growth rate, and money supply growth rate, and explain why this bill is going to cause a lot of inflation, especially when the interest on the federal debt is excacerbated by it.

The point is that the excessive Federal spending that President Obama has already set a precedent for is a prime cause of stagflation. That is, the growth of the money supply outpaces that of the GDP. An increasing ratio of money to production. This can produce an economic state that will never improve unless a new market is found (more production) or the currency supply contracts (deflation).
In a normal economy, left unchecked, stagflation will fix itself, eventually. More people enter the workforce, labor and wages eventuallly stabilize, new markets are found, the currency supply contracts because people save more and invest, borrow, and loan less.
However, in a system like the one that Obama is trumpeting, to the tune of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars per year, the GDP will never outgrow the currency supply. The government borrows or prints money at such a fantastic rate that the economy cannot keep pace, and the system eventually collapses under the weight of a mountain of worthless currency.

There are those who say that the stimulus will be able to create jobs and invigorate the annual growth of the GDP enough to offset and even negate its' cost, but such a thing has never happened in U.S. history. The Great Society was the last program on this scale and that is universally acknowledged as a complete failure. The New Deal came before that, and it was also a catastrophic failure. One that, incidentally, you are still paying for in spades today. Social Security entitlements make up a tremendous amount of the Federal budget. Somewhere in the neighborhood of one third last time I looked, and growing every year.
And for the better part of a century prior to that there were "progressive" programs here and there, and the creation of a central bank and etc etc ad nauseam....
Oh and don't forget the price controls and federal measures imposed in the 70's gas crunch. Those were similarly brilliant.

Now, we are to look at this "stimulus bill" as some kind of salvation, despite the huge expenditures on programs and grants that have no relevance to the economy contained therein, as well as the utter failure of all similar measures? You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical.

No state authority can ever effectively regulate or otherwise affect an economy of any type, other than to make it less efficient. Th economy is simply too complex. Millions upon millions of individuals making untold numbers of transactions every day according to their own criterion and the laws of supply and demand. The type of centralization of economic control that we are facing here is akin to checking all of your calculator's computations manually. Yeah, you can do it and you can still get stuff done, but it is horribly inefficient and ends up being wrong a fair amount of the time.
History has proven this time and time again. Even "successful" centralist states are beset by the same problems the U.S. has now and is steadily making worse. Many are "new"(in various senses of the word) states and have not died as much, but they are dying the same death.

So yes, to summarize, there is reason to worry about what President Obama's administration and the Democratic Congress are doing, already.
To be fair, I don't think he's a bad person or that he intends to cause the damage he is causing. I think he really means to help. He really does want a change for the better. But, like so many others who thought they knew enough to lead others and provide for their welfare, I think he'll end up doing more harm than good.

No matter what your views on the state may be or what party controls it, it is, in effect, a monopoly. Would you let your choice of grocery stores or doctors or toy stores or whatever be governed by a two-company system that only lets you choose every two or four years? Of course not. Because it'd be stupid.
Our government uses that system, and admittedly, it has to do so, because the administration of the state cannot be changed at a whim without impairing its' ability to enforce Constitutional law. But why give more power to that monopoly than is absolutely necessary? Why give it more money, more authority? This bill gives more money and authority to the state. Could you not use your freedom and income more wisely yourself?

GoldenRivet probably has a similar set of ideas, though we may disagree on several points.
So anyhow, that's my 2 cents. And don't think that because I disagree with you to whatever extent that your opinion is not welcome or will not be considered. But please don't imply that my friend GR, or anyone, is a "hate-spewing Republican"
Jokes and jabs are fine, of course.

Hope to see more of you on the boards:salute:

Aw look what you did, guys! You pissed off IanC before he could read my very thorough and diplomatic post.

And I spent all that time writing it too......:wah:


Oh well, maybe some literate liberal will stumble across it:O: :03:

Well, it shows that President Obama is popular among the ...populace. Which you asked for.

So actually, it shows...well, everything.

And, in future I'll try to find a "paragraph sentence" (?!?) that makes sense. :hmmm:

A. Barely a majority. Only with poll takers which are typically liberals as statistics show, so it means even less overall.

B. You again make no sense while trying to say I make none. Try to form a thought properly and maybe I will try and make more sense for you.

-S

We don't need the President to tell us how bad things are. There are plenty of other government agencies and news sources whose job it is to do so.

We need a president responsible enough to understand that his words mean something, and can therefore use them to help instill confidence in our financial system rather than acting further to scuttle it.

That's a grossly inaccurate and uninformed statement, considering that the other presidents are all judged on their approval ratings for their complete presidencies, and Obama is only a month in.

If we're going by simply a snapshot of an approval rating, Obama hasn't even come close to Bush's highest mark.

Probably a good thing you don't plan on hanging around here. We don't need more misinformation. :stare:

Dude. slow down speedy.

Im not ranting by any means. if i were "ranting" my post would be at least as long as our friend the Lance Corporal's post. :rotfl:

I dont care if the man is in 4 years or 8 years. I dont hate the man... i do think he is a "fresh face" for America.

The whole point of my post was - just as the great war hero Bill Clinton said this week - Obama needs to stop lobbing out fear grenades and start up with that "Hope" stuff any minute now.

Dont feel sorry for me friend... i dont need one ounce of sympathy from you.

al i want

is for our president to get out there and give at least ONE "win one for the gipper" speach... ONE such speach is all i ask for and then i dont give a damn if he spreads fear and anxiety for the next 4 or 8 years... i will be fine... but the brother ran on HOPE and he is doing nothing but leading by FEAR.

I dont care - really - if he keeps ONE single promise.

Nor do i really care if a Dem or a Rep or a conservative or liberal is holding the reigns to America.... all i want is the leadership based on fear in this country to stop.

We listened to 8 years of Bush and his cronies go on and on about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

I'll be damned if im going to live through most of my 30s now listening to Obama go on and on about the Economic Crisis and how it will be the end of all of us unless we send him every dime we have.

i have had enough man.

from day one in his campaign he ran on HOPE this and HOPE that... but since the day he took office all he has done is painted a picture of darkness and dispair.

fine... big economic crisis. i understand it is bad, we all know this is a sh*t sandwich we are all going to have to take a bite of to some degree or another.

but does he not have the leadership capability to take the podium and tell his countrymen that it is going to be ok????

HELLO??? CHURCHILL???

i think any Brit will agree... 1939-1941 were some pretty damned bad times but did Churchill get up and go on and on about how "jerry is going to kill us all run for the hills"?

hell no!

he was a LEADER OF MEN

he said "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

Churchillknew his Island was up against some serious sh*t... but he wasnt taking to the lifeboats just yet. FIGHT!!! WIN!!! that was his message of HOPE.

and Obama cant even give ONE SINGLE message of hope????

:nope:

EMPTY BOX

you dont know my party affiliation, and in this discussion it is irrelevant.. i am loyal to my nation and her cause - THAT is what matters IanC... not anything else.

nothing requires me as a citizen of this nation to support or back our leadership, i chose to do so because i consider it a duty of mine as an American... but i have a hard time following someone who leads by fear and intimidation.

Today is Obama's time to shine... today is Americas time to UNITE and grow from this mess.

it wont happen over night... but it damned sure wont happen if our president is moping around spreading fear.

Pollsters = liberals. Amazing.

So, you tell me I make no sense, and in the same breath you tell me exactly what I was trying to say. Even more amazing. :har:

According to Gallup bush's approval ratings before 911 ranged from low 60's to low 50's

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/De...-Midrange.aspx