You say no time in history is about one man. Then you say what is important is doom and havoc on the US people because of Obama. So you blame one man.
Who here *doesn't* believe that Obama is doomed?
- Thread starter LodeRunner
- Start date
You say no time in history is about one man. Then you say what is important is doom and havoc on the US people because of Obama. So you blame one man.
No, I said "no time in US history SHOULD be about one man".
The last 8 years were too much about one man.. Bush... and it was all very wrong.
And I do blame Obama. He's even worse than Bush in his efforts to "remake everything according to his vision". And in spite of half of the country swooning on his every word, his plans for America are very wrong.. and will be more damaging than Bush.
We have never elected a President (at least not up until now) with the intention of granting him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. (Maybe he got the idea from Nixon... who seemed to believe that nothing he did could be called illegal because he was president.)
What you are saying is no time (should) be about one man, ok. How Obama trys to fix the economy that he did not create is about a man who is trying to fix something of created by many. Maybe he make some mistakes in fixing something he did not create, but you can not blame him alone. If Obama was not elected president, the trillion dollar wealth that is fake would still be here.
The false wealth/economy began under Reagan. Nixon bought us time when he killed off Bretton Woods - that gave every President after Reagan the flexibility to use the national credit card to create "wealth."
Carter and Ford lived with the after effects of the post Bretton Wood system - Paul Volcker - did the right thing, but the the consequences of Volcker's Fed killed off Carter's Presidency.
It's all a mirage.
Tell me - how would have Reagan's "miracle" played out if the national debt didn't go parabolic at the middle of his first term? The so-called secular bull market?
So what is Obama doing to maintain the economy? What is his contribution to the above chart going to look like? Any similarities with Reagan?
The first participants of any Ponzi scheme look succesful (Reagan) the last guys are left holding the bag (likely Obama).
What killed Carter's Presidency was chastising Americans we were in a national malaise.
Sky high oil from the Iranian oil cutoff and inability to free the
hostages in Iran.
Volcker's rate hikes affected the first part of Reagan's Presidency,
In fact Carter was already out when the big hikes were implemented.
Inflation began to rise during Gerald Ford's term {remember whip
inflation now?}.
Bush 1 was a globalist, not Reagan. The damage really began after Reagan.
Sky high oil from the Iranian oil cutoff and inability to free the
hostages in Iran.
Volcker's rate hikes affected the first part of Reagan's Presidency,
In fact Carter was already out when the big hikes were implemented.
Inflation began to rise during Gerald Ford's term {remember whip
inflation now?}.
Bush 1 was a globalist, not Reagan. The damage really began after Reagan.
Carter's Administration (1/1977 - 1/1981):
Reagan's administration 1st term (1/1981-1/1985):
Which term would you rather be President?
Oh yeah, by the way... not only did rates drop under Reagan, but he started a "stimulus" that was unprecendented (save the period between GD1 and WWII) in his two terms:
My concern is that we do not whitewash Reagan's "successes." Plain and simple, he ran massive debts that had the effect of stimulus, while experiencing decreasing interest rates. It was also under Reagan that the massive transfer of wealth began with the slow concentration of wealth in the top 1%.
I don't want to make this a Democrat v Republican thing - I don't believe that is the case anymore. Banking interests have captured gov't - plain and simple. Both Bush and Obama have the same people running the Treasury.
Iran was already a ticking timebomb that was temporarily (and illegally) diffused under Eisenhower with the overthrow of Mossedeq - blowblack from that action was bound to happen - it was just a question of when.
The "malaise" speech by Carter was a symptom, not a policy - Skyrocketing interest rates and inflation were the after effects of the death of Bretton Woods. The oil embargo's roots, in my view, were the result of Arabs no longer getting dollars that were redeemable in gold. I'd be pissed off too.
If we view this crisis using a "big picture" vantage point - we realize that the players (presidents) are not as influential as we think. I think all fiat currencies, because of the lack of constraints in their creation, ultimately fail.
In 1980, US was in bad shape. No one can effectively argue that Reagan's leadership did not put us on the path. He had a
positive message unlike "Jimmah." There were a lot of folks who thought Reagan would "ruin" us. Carter's appointment of Volcker
turned out to be his best accomplishment.
Reagan also took controls off of petroleum which caused the price to drop. I'm not sure Carter would have done that, had he
won a second term. Heavy government regulation always drags
down the economy(as Obama will find out}.
The only thing I can fault Reagan for is the deregulation of the
banking industry whereby the seeds of this current crisis were sown. This is where the derivative debacle was spawned.
I agree with your point about Americans no longer being in
control.
positive message unlike "Jimmah." There were a lot of folks who thought Reagan would "ruin" us. Carter's appointment of Volcker
turned out to be his best accomplishment.
Reagan also took controls off of petroleum which caused the price to drop. I'm not sure Carter would have done that, had he
won a second term. Heavy government regulation always drags
down the economy(as Obama will find out}.
The only thing I can fault Reagan for is the deregulation of the
banking industry whereby the seeds of this current crisis were sown. This is where the derivative debacle was spawned.
I agree with your point about Americans no longer being in
control.