Which president do you prefer?

[liljp617]

It's pretty silly to sit here and try to judge Obama vs the other "nominees" when they each had 8 years in office to screw things up and Obama has had a few months.

[mcsorleyaaron]

 I think obama is doing a good job

[eSineM]

The Bush Administration left the economy in a position where there is no other choice but expansionary policy, which is what the Obama Administration is carrying out.  You cannot allow the banks to fail, regardless of what you have to do to keep that from happening.  You cannot let deflation run out of control, regardless of what you have to do to stop it.  Letting everything fall (especially the banks) is not the inherent answer, as many expert economists will tell you.

The government spending isn't that big of a deal considering consumer spending the last couple years has dropped nearly $1 trillion...to put it simply, it's relatively even still.  Does it make a difference if consumers are doing the spending or government is doing the spending?  Frankly, not really as long as it's going into our economy.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Obama ever clearly stated his position on marijuana legalization before he was elected.  I think people who wanted legalization pushed the idea that Obama was pro-full legalization. I also think Obama doesn't think it's an important, relevant issue at the current time...and it really isn't to be honest.  Call your Congressman if you want it pushed, as they're the people who are going to push such a bill.  The President has too much to lose to focus on such a trivial bill right now, especially when there is still a gross social stigma/reputation surrounding marijuana.

As for the "what's the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq:"  One was an unnecessary war (at the time) that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was a random retaliation brought about by constant lying, fear mongering, and injustices to the American people by the Bush Administration.  Afghanistan was a direct retaliation on the groups/individuals responsible for an attack on our own soil and the murder of almost 3,000 US citizens.  That would be the prime difference.  Clearly Afghanistan was basically forgotten by the Bush Administration.  US and other troop deaths were off the charts, Taliban had a very strong foothold, etc.  Not to mention that the leaders of those who attacked us are on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is all the more reason to focus there if we truly want justice for what happened (something, I'm unsure if the Bush Administration wanted).

After all, what your really saying is... "I will work entirely for the government this percentage of my time" which is actually slave labor... but that's another story altogether.

I don't even want to get started, but think about how messed up stuff it is to have governments owning banks...! that's the very definition of socialism (in the dictionary even)...? Then now they are talking about bailing out the news organizations... this is bad news when the news station that's suppose to report things like government corruption, is dependent on the government funding...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/obama-appointee-suggests-radical-plan-newspaper-bailout/

Socialism is the opposite of what America was founded on, and is the opposite of Liberty... You should have the right to keep your money you earned and pay for your own bills if you wish! If you want some sort of insurance or aid, you can feel free to pay into it... Social Security should be optional for example (as has been proposed by many including Congressman Ron Paul).

They should be auditing the Fed, investigating the company failures... and prosecuting those who misled others, and did not do their jobs... BUT... the housing crisis and all these other loan crisis are honestly just a drop in the bucket compared to trillions being spent on endless war and contracts... and trillions just up and vanishing randomly in the books... amazing how big a trillion dollars is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caMRBGmja3w

I also want to point out that whent he government interferes with business, rights are lost... case in point, when GM was bailed out recently the employees were forced into an agreement which stated, all union employees are NOT allowed to strike... which is their right... so if they are underpaid, or anything happens, they cannot strike... If they do, the government will automatically force payment of all loans and the company will be forced to shutdown, all employees out of a job.... sound a bit like blackmale? thats exactly what it is...

As for the Marijuana laws... he clearly stated we should "rethink" and he believes in the decriminalization of Marijuana, but not legalization...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA (2004)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nczhbou9JU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw

[brendy1990]

Clinton is hands down my favourite, his term as president was when the United States was the top country in the world, and from then on, the our standing internationally has gone down quite a bit.

my thoughts exactly, clinton was my fave so far, but who nows it may change to obama, will see..

[liljp617]

After all, what your really saying is... "I will work entirely for the government this percentage of my time" which is actually slave labor... but that's another story altogether.

Actually what I'm saying is that in order to have an economy with a sufficient amount of jobs, increased expansionary policies in government spending and extravagant actions are necessary (in fact, mandatory by current law) even from the most basic macroeconomic perspective.

You simply cannot allow the banks to fail.  It's as simple as that.  If the banks fail on the level that they were heading, there is no economy.  You assert I will be working for the government; in response, I'll tell you that you wouldn't have a job if the economy were allowed to completely collapse under the assumption that it will rebuild itself.

[abeyta87]

Obama for sure he is doing a great job at fixing the mess that was placed on him... He is going to make things great for our country and we should all be thankful that the other party didn't win or we would be worse off then we are today 

[eSineM]

After all, what your really saying is... "I will work entirely for the government this percentage of my time" which is actually slave labor... but that's another story altogether.

Actually what I'm saying is that in order to have an economy with a sufficient amount of jobs, increased expansionary policies in government spending and extravagant actions are necessary (in fact, mandatory by current law) even from the most basic macroeconomic perspective.

You simply cannot allow the banks to fail.  It's as simple as that.  If the banks fail on the level that they were heading, there is no economy.  You assert I will be working for the government; in response, I'll tell you that you wouldn't have a job if the economy were allowed to completely collapse under the assumption that it will rebuild itself.

Ok so the answer is yes... you actually believe there is only one solution possible to fix the problem, and that is bailout, or the entire economy will collapse. That's what I was checking... If a bank collapses it can cause problems yes, but that is inevitable.. you do realize that these bailouts are only temporary band-aids right...?... the economy by design will do this again and again, until the percentage of your check taken for taxes is 100% and your a government employee no matter where you work. This is the idea of socialism, you believe socialism is the only way. Others believe differently is all I'm saying, and there are multiple options.. Like throughout all of history... socialists believe their way is the only way or there will be ruin.. capitalists believe the same... fascists.. .communists... every type, so I cant fault you for that... You should however just be aware that you support the end of capitalism and the government funded and run banking systems of socialism.

I also would like to mention that its not just banks being bailed out...

[liljp617]

After all, what your really saying is... "I will work entirely for the government this percentage of my time" which is actually slave labor... but that's another story altogether.

Actually what I'm saying is that in order to have an economy with a sufficient amount of jobs, increased expansionary policies in government spending and extravagant actions are necessary (in fact, mandatory by current law) even from the most basic macroeconomic perspective.

You simply cannot allow the banks to fail.  It's as simple as that.  If the banks fail on the level that they were heading, there is no economy.  You assert I will be working for the government; in response, I'll tell you that you wouldn't have a job if the economy were allowed to completely collapse under the assumption that it will rebuild itself.

Ok so the answer is yes... you actually believe there is only one solution possible to fix the problem, and that is bailout, or the entire economy will collapse. That's what I was checking... If a bank collapses it can cause problems yes, but that is inevitable.. you do realize that these bailouts are only temporary band-aids right...?... the economy by design will do this again and again, until the percentage of your check taken for taxes is 100% and your a government employee no matter where you work. This is the idea of socialism, you believe socialism is the only way. Others believe differently is all I'm saying, and there are multiple options.. Like throughout all of history... socialists believe their way is the only way or there will be ruin.. capitalists believe the same... fascists.. .communists... every type, so I cant fault you for that... You should however just be aware that you support the end of capitalism and the government funded and run banking systems of socialism.

I also would like to mention that its not just banks being bailed out...

How many economics classes have you taken, and what level were they?

A lot of what you're saying is completely contradictory to even the most basic of the principles of macroeconomics.

You can stop with the fear mongering surrounding socialism as well.  FDR's actions were much larger than what has been done so far by the Obama and Bush Administrations...yet we have remained a very capitalist-minded economy.  Numerous other countries have inserted socialist programs (health, education, etc.) and their countries did not go down the toilet...most are doing better than the US at the moment.

Bailing out the banks does not send our country down an unending slippery slope of constant bailouts.  It prevents the banks for falling completely, which would lead to the crashing of our entire economy.  The government props them up by allowing them to have non-toxic assets to start loaning to people again.  When they can start getting loans out and receiving quality returns as they were before, the bailouts stop.  How long that takes is questionable, but you won't find a legitimate economists who asserts that bailouts will continue until our income tax is 100%.  That's pure nonsense, paranoia, and fear mongering at its best.

What you're asserting is, at the onset or in the middle of a recession, a government should utilize contractionary monetary and fiscal policies.  And that is factually incorrect in the eyes of every educated economist.  It is one of the first things taught in introductory macroeconomics courses; that expansionary monetary and fiscal policies are required to bring an economy out of recession or depression and that contractionary policies are used to control the rate of inflation, spending, and much more.

I am not encouraging a fully socialist economy (yes, aspects of socialism are necessary as the top economies in history will serve as examples).  I am encouraging the pretty basic economic principle that when an economy is on the brink of recession or is in a recession, expansionary policies (increased government spending mainly) are necessary and, as I mentioned earlier, REQUIRED by law.  When the unemployment rate reaches a certain percentage, for example, the federal government is REQUIRED BY LAW to step in and do everything possible to lower that unemployment rate.  When the rate of inflation or deflation reaches a certain point, the government is REQUIRED BY LAW to step in and stop the changes.

[woodensaint]

I think it is too early to judge Obama's presidencey. He has obviously stepped into office with probably the largest economic crisis, in a very long time. He has two unfinished occupations on foreign soil, he has to deal with public scrutiny of bank bailouts, which is also a process that began under the Bush Jr. administration. It is rather unfortunate that regardless of how his term(s) end he will never really achieve the forward motion he had planned as most of his time will be spent rebuilding and undoing the past. He is really going to have to take extreme measures, some counter to his intentions, simply to avoid coming out of this mess as failed president.

[eSineM]

Well here is the bottom line... you quote stuff out of some economic journal... and Ill show you whats happening.... look at inflation, has it gone down since we have started this form of economy...? When on the gold standard the value of the dollar barely changed at all, over 100 years passed and it barely budged... then comes into the current Fiat system, taxes have increased ever since... bailouts have occurred in the past several times, this is not something that is "new". Yet we are bailing out more now, inflation is going up (you can see it! its not in a text book, its in the real statistics), and the taxes are also going up.... Yet we are still going even more negative, and Social security was negative in February of this year for example... So how is it this will magically improve? it wont... and if you look into it, there are MANY very reputable economist saying this will NOT help... Want some?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnmo41TbK_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpY6JvG7w6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag-kkq_vKHA

That's Jim Rogers, Ron Paul, Bob Barr.

Many smart investors are not only investing in property over seas, but also gold and silver.

[eSineM]

I think it is too early to judge Obama's presidencey. He has obviously stepped into office with probably the largest economic crisis, in a very long time. He has two unfinished occupations on foreign soil, he has to deal with public scrutiny of bank bailouts, which is also a process that began under the Bush Jr. administration. It is rather unfortunate that regardless of how his term(s) end he will never really achieve the forward motion he had planned as most of his time will be spent rebuilding and undoing the past. He is really going to have to take extreme measures, some counter to his intentions, simply to avoid coming out of this mess as failed president.

I agree about Obama, the bottom line is the economy is a lot bigger than the President. He is not the biggest economy expert, and he also is not the guy who makes the overall decisions... So while people like to blame Obama's monetary policy, the truth is, it is no different than Bush's, or the next president after Obama. It is driven by private interests, lobbying, and those who have the most "influence". So he is not somebody ruining America or anything, he is only part of a big corporation or company that is ruining America. Its like blaming the sales clerk at wal-mart for the slave labor in china... indirectly they are supporting it as with anyone shopping there... but they too are victims of the job market, economy etc. So you cant blame them... same way you cant directly blame Obama for "doing his job". His job is to facilitate theft of the people, even if he tries his best to minimize it.

If Obama undoes some of the past great.. the problem is, I believe he will be leaving a trail that needs to be undone as well... maybe not by choice, but mere position as president... for example, these bailouts are a burden on our children much more than us... Their taxes will go up most, and the inflation will take time to fully take effect as the money gets distributed... so they will have higher taxes and lower value of their savings or inheritance etc. That's who suffers... by bailing them out now, and not dealing with financial issues, depression etc. which is natural and necessary... we are putting it off so our children will face a BIGGER recession and BIGGER depression as they run into a point when they can no longer just print money and bail out the banks... Other countries wont just sit by as the US prints endless money to bailout every failing bank. Some day they will decide not to get involved with the falling dollar... as many countries already have when they switched to the EURO.

[CompKillaz]

it don't matter to me... they all do stuff that we don't like and they all do stuff that we do like so its a toss up

[trop8cana]

It's pretty silly to sit here and try to judge Obama vs the other "nominees" when they each had 8 years in office to screw things up and Obama has had a few months.

  I agree.

[bradymoto]

For me, my values and political outlook most aligns with the Republican party. However, I feel it is important to support the leader of our country regardless of political party. While I disagree with almost everyone of Obama's policies and views, I do feel like he is legitimately trying to help the country, and I hope he succeeds.

[discardedheart]

I seem to be a lonely republican in this forum. I really liked both of the Bush's.  However I agree with an earlier post.  If I was to pick one president to re-vote into office I would vote Thomas Jefferson.  He is basically the creator of this country not George Washington, and he did everything in his power to make this a country of the people, however he had to make other politicians happy in order to even do what he did so the system isn't as good as it could have been.  I look up to him a great deal.

ditto, ditto.