hops_scout Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The president is still the president. You should hold the man up in prayer if you like him or not. He is still "THE MAN." Interesting you say that. If that would have been said 8 months ago, 2 years ago, etc the Democrats would have just laughed in your face. But now, it's a different story-- you must bow down to him. Yeah right. President Obama has a lot of work to do. He can start by giving us some kind of hope because right now he is destroying it and his approval ratings are already starting to fall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yes, according to Gallup, Obama's approval rating has plunged to 67%. Down from a high of 69% right after the inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hops_scout Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Hal, I don't have the source at my fingertips at the moment, but I have seen it lower.. maybe a different term I'm thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Hops-Scout: Here's the link to Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx Other polls may have different numbers. While at Gallup take a look at the numbers for State of the Nation and Consumer Confidence-frightening! Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MileHighScouter Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 OMG. I echo mmHardy. Sure are short memories out there. Bushwacker took over with a budget surplus, and a deficit lower than Bushwacker's father had left it. The economy was booming and employment was up. Bushwacker left office after trashing the economy. It was good policy to fight a war off-budget? Give trillions to oil companies for "exploration" while they were reaping record profits? Forgive taxes on both oil companies and Haliburton et al.? There is no doubt what's wrong with the economy. Its in the same shape was it was, for the same reasons, as when Nixon, a Republican, imposed wage and price controls. Somebody in this thread said: "According to Dick Morris, the effective new tax rate will be somewhere around 60-62%." COMMENT: BS. Warren Buffet says BS, and he applauds the efforts to rein in the excesses of the last admin, and he was saying it for the last several years. He has more money than Dick Morris (Who?). Sombody said: "To me, this has many chilling implications: -Small businessmen will no longer be willing to invest in entrepreneurial endeavours, thus NOT creating new jobs and "trickle down" cash flow to suppliers." COMMENT: I own a small business. Do you? Trickle my patootie. I'm paying almost double for health insurance over the last 10 years for my employees, I'm paying more taxes (Bushwackers "cuts" were never cuts every one was an increase for small business and the middle class), and I've got less business because my customers are unemployed and losing their houses. Anything that Obama does can't make it worse. Somebody said: "-Charitable organizations will struggle and many will die." COMMENT: Old news. They did, about 7 years ago, right after the Bushwacker took the deduction for charitable deductions out. At the same time turning over the housing of the homeless to the private sector (and don't start on homeless, there are as many women and children homeless in Denver, CO right this minute as men. And not nearly enough shelters. Somebody said: "-As investors move their money to foreign companies and hard commodities such as gold, the value of US companies will continue to spiral downward, resulting in massive unemployment." COMMENT: Huh. Apples & quamquats. The stock market crashed due to junk securities, allowed for the first time in US history since the great depression by Bushwacker, who then also cut regulation and oversight out. REsult, quick buck artists -- who then got Bushwacker to give them a trillion dollars in bail outs to line their pockets with. Stocks are in the dumper because the entire world economy has crashed. Most Americans with 401Ks have been in foreign companies for years, companies like GM, Exon and all major oil companies, AIG, Haliburton, Chrysler, Ford,.... Somebody said: "-The construction and real estate markets will evaporate as the advantages of home ownership are stripped away." COMMENT: where on earth did that come from? Real estate values have been dropping in this country for the last 7 years. Its just started dropping faster recently. It has to do with no jobs and high prices and junk loans. Not "incentives." Incentives my patootie. SS: "-The continuing international devaluation of the US$ will lead to hyper-inflation and bankrupt the country (let's hope the Chi-Coms keep buying our worthless debt paper)" COMMENT: read a paper. The Chinese (who by the way manufacture almost everything we buy -- and EVERYTHING the BSA buys and sells, are in a huge financial crises because they invested in US debt. As is the rest of the world. I'd praise Bushwacker for that one, but it was an unintended by product of his desire to let the uberrich use China to avoid regulation of products (lead or melamine anyone?). ON A POSITIVE NOTE. Those of us with 401ks should be CAREFUL not to sell too quickly. They will come back. When they do, your losses are made up. Sell and the losses are locked in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 A few hours ago I watched CNN and listened to over an hour of Rush Limbaugh speaking to CPAC. Then I log onto the Scouter Forum and see the title of this thread. I am weary of this evening. Heavy sigh. Think I'll go to bed. Good night all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le Voyageur Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Back in the 80's when my University major was Economics, we spent a considerable amount of class time discussing "trickle" down economics with a few very very sharp pencils. Taking those lessons to heart, my wife and I over the years "Reaganproofed" our investments, and lifestyle. We had not a clue as to when the economy would crash, but we knew that in time it would, and would hard. Our preparedness for this future is now paying off. None the less, the return to Keynesian economics is interesting, and may well work, as Reaganomics is now a proven failure. It's a wait, and see,but I feel that the President is on the right, but a very risky track..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hops_scout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 MileHighScouter, did you really need to resort to name-calling? And let's remember that both Bush administrations had to deal with combat-- Clinton did not. Believe it or not, combat costs money. Especially when the previous administration cuts military spending in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MileHighScouter Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Name calling? Oh, Bushwacker. Ok, I could say AWOLer in Chief. Or perhaps Coke Head In Office. But heck, its clear that I don't respect him, couldn't. He's a crook, a liar and a facist. But that's just my opinion. As for combat and the cost of war. Well I'm an Army Vet. Missed all the wars in my 20. But I know that if you go to war then you do three things: 1. You tell the people why you are going, and you don't lie about the reason. Vietnam may have been dumb, but the purpose was stated, and when the purpose was rejected by the people, we left. Sadam never had WMD's. He never had anything to do with Al Quaida or the Taliban. Bush ordered his folks to lie to us and to the UN. We fell for it. 2. You commit the troops only when they are properly equipped, led, and have a mission that is possible for troops. The army is not a police force. Its terrible at governing anyone. It doesn't nation-build. It breaks things well. Our troops were sent to war without body armor or armored humvees when those things were available. APCs which are armored and protect against RPGs were never sent to Iraq, they continue to sit in the US and Germany. Our Troops were sent to war led by politicians, not generals. CIA agents ordered soldiers to abuse prisoners and the coward Rumsfeld protected the CIA and court-martialed the soldiers. AND you take care of your wounded. Instead Bush cut VA benefits, VA hospital funding, and told the Reservists that they weren't active duty troops so they didn't get medical benefits. Most are still waiting. 3. And you have to recognize that you have to pay for the war, and you have to decide how you are going to pay for the war. Bush not only didn't care, he simultaneously handed out trillions in tax cuts and handouts to buddies and friends at the same time that he was spending trillions on war. Then he tried to make up the deficit on the backs of the middle class. By the way, I giggle every time Clinton gets used to try and justify anything that Bush did. Bush will go to his grave with people still talking about his predecessor. What does that say about Bush's legacy. Everything, as far as I see. Bush's federal spending and size of government were 5 times the size of Clinton's. However, name the last President to authorize, fund and field an entirely new army division? Yep, Clinton. Even with past spending adjusted upward for inflation, the $630 billion provided for the military in 2007 exceeds the highest annual amounts during the Reagan-era defense buildup, the Vietnam War and the Korean War, combined. And OMG, Reagan WON the Cold War with his buildup. You want to talk about the fact that Clinton had no war. WRONG. Clinton went to Boznia and Serbia, stopped the genocide, created new nations, helped them start themselves, and withdrew. AND DID NOT HAVE ONE CASULATY FROM COMBAT OPERATIONS. Clinton, of course, had an advantage. He had Colin Powell as the general, and let him have his head, and he didn't have Rumsfeld, meddler and crazy czar of war-ness to run his war into the ground. By the way, remember when Clinton tried to kill Osama with a cruise missle, and Congress went nuts and told him to stop? There were key Republicans shouting that we couldn't attack another nation without warning and without a declaration of war (they were talking about Afganistan at the time). Clinton was explaining about the Taliban and Al Quaida back then, but Congress was focused on blue dresses -- after all first things first. Remember when Clinton's advisors told Bush and his guys, in writing and in meetings, that Osama was going to attack and they needed to get him first? Remember when Bush and Co ignored Osama and the records, intelligence, and etc. and then 9/11 happened...... I'm a Republican, but my party left office with Reagan and never came back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hops_scout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 By the way, I giggle every time Clinton gets used to try and justify anything that Bush did. Bush will go to his grave with people still talking about his predecessor. What does that say about Bush's legacy. Everything, as far as I see. You realize that this is Obama's exact excuse for EVERYTHING? And if he isn't using it, his supporters are all over it. And talking about AWOL in Office.. Barack Obama spends more time on vacation than he does anything else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hops, I don't think you really want to go down that road on the vacation issue. President GW Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president since at least WWII. He took 5 weeks of vacation every summer. I am not suggesting that he didn't need the vacation time. Perhaps we'd all have been better off if he had taken more . But barely 40 days into the Obama presidency, your argument is rather premature and not well-supported by fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hops_scout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Lisabob, I say that knowing President Obama was on vacation for 3 weekends already I think? And I don't entirely mean vacation, but the fact that he was campaigning for the Presidential Election of 2008 all the way back in 2005 while he was supposed to be a US Senator representing the state of Illinois. As for Bush, I'm not defending him. I just get a kick out of how different things are with a different party in office.... can't say I really like either of them even though I was a fan of President Bush at one time. President Obama I haven't made a decision on yet unlike many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I think Congress and the President should go on vacation more. Like 51 weeks a year. Show up for a week, pass the budget and go home. They won't screw up much then. Bosnia and Kosovo were not wars. I dont know why we fought them. Serbia did not threaten the US at all. Was much less a a threat than Iraq ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le Voyageur Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 that both Bush administrations had to deal with combat... Being on active duty, and part of the intell community during the Tanker War, Iraq's war with Iran had in effect spent what few WMD's Iraq had. Basing a needless war on WMD that never existed was the first of many of the Big Lie's of the Bush Administration. Lacking the wisdom, and experience of his father, W took this country down a road it did not have to travel, expending both blood and a considerable amount of treasure that could of been better utilized in many domestic programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 "Lacking the wisdom, and experience of his father, W took this country down a road it did not have to travel, expending both blood and a considerable amount of treasure that could of been better utilized in many domestic programs." So not fighting the war was about spending money on other stupid stuff, not saving money and paying down the debt! Big Lie? Does that count as Godwin's Law BTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now