Debate Mansion

   

Evaluating Obama's Tenure (Page 10)

Post Reply New Post

Page 10 of 20

raj5000

Moderator

raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006

Posts: 11720

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 11:24am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crossroads7

Originally posted by raj5000

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s ' yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January ' the most in nearly 35 years ' and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.



The payroll stats picked out from the line-up above are just one of various stats. Other stats will tell a different story. Failure of big banks, investment banks that have stood the test of time failing/ needing bailout funds/ adopting the commercial bank charter, those are more telling stats. The speed of the fall is also unprecedented. We are coming off an era where low unemployment rates were the norm, not like olden times when 7% unemplyment was an achievement because the economy did not have as much productive capacity to absorb new workers. Wealth erosion- some $30 trillion of it world-wide- when have we seen that. GM, Ford, other industries needing wholeseale bailouts. State governments running in the red.... After all that, if the AP reporter wants to cherry-pick his stats to sell his story, go for it. There'll always be an uninformed audience that'll buy into any storyWink
 
Originally posted by crossroads7


The part in bold above has to take the cake for the moronic statement of the day. It's like saying- the hardest thing to predict is the future. Tongue DuhTongue

That was an AP reporter!LOL

PS ' Combined response on both your quotes (not wanna be called rude for not replyingLOLLOL refering to recent thread..not reply = rudeLOL). AP Article was shared to give some diff. insights other then the usual blabber by biased conservative talk shows, not intending to defend AP's comments but anyways'

 

Yup, is there any scope of prediction to start with, after hearing quotes from The Chosen ONE??Wink What ever is said will DONELOL, no point in bringing in moronic theoriesLOL. Both of the statements sure has super tinyWink contradiction on Creating Jobs Vs saving / Creating Jobs, but words are not just words, Pres O means it and will prove it even if there is no metrics availability that can verify numbers as far as saving jobs are concernedWinkLOLLOL

 

What you said is right, regarding several stats and root cause of the problem!!Thumbs Up Was mention of this for Pres. Obama's camp or for the AP contributors?Confused Am confused here LOL wonder who started on focusing (forcing) employment numbers and creating jobs NO.1 reason and burning issue behind the urgency of SP?ConfusedLOL Whole nautanki (to add more one was the being bipartisan lolls 3 out of 537 is not only bi but tri-partisanshipLOL) during the press conference was focusing on Jobs (to be specific on unemployment numbers), and then comes big scare statementsTongue, to inculcate fear across the board especially in the mind of some uniformed folksWink. Talking about uninformed folks, boy aren't they in for the worst reality check of their lives?? All I can say keep the faith, one day their bills will be taken care of automatically, All the OBamaest Luck!LOL Must commend the O camp Clap how they play these conferences / speeches primary targeting sentiments of uninformed or perhaps informed but Obamanized folks and are successful to NAIL them on each and every occasion. LOLLOL 
 
 
 
 


Edited by raj5000 - 11 February 2009 at 11:43am

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Evaluating Obama's Tenure (Page 10)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

crossroads7

Senior Member

Joined: 30 December 2008

Posts: 379

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 11:52am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

crossroads7

Senior Member

Joined: 30 December 2008

Posts: 379

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 12:10pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

raj5000

Moderator

raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006

Posts: 11720

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 1:23pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by crossroads7

Originally posted by raj5000

 

Yup, is there any scope of prediction to start with, after hearing quotes from The Chosen ONE??Wink What ever is said will DONELOL, no point in bringing in moronic theoriesLOL. Both of the statements sure has super tinyWink contradiction on Creating Jobs Vs saving / Creating Jobs, but words are not just words, Pres O means it and will prove it even if there is no metrics availability that can verify numbers as far as saving jobs are concernedWinkLOLLOL

 

What you said is right, regarding several stats and root cause of the problem!!Thumbs Up Was mention of this for Pres. Obama's camp or for the AP contributors?Confused Am confused here LOL wonder who started on focusing (forcing) employment numbers and creating jobs NO.1 reason and burning issue behind the urgency of SP?ConfusedLOL Whole nautanki (to add more one was the being bipartisan lolls 3 out of 537 is not only bi but tri-partisanshipLOL) during the press conference was focusing on Jobs (to be specific on unemployment numbers), and then comes big scare statementsTongue, to inculcate fear across the board especially in the mind of some uniformed folksWink. Talking about uninformed folks, boy aren't they in for the worst reality check of their lives?? All I can say keep the faith, one day their bills will be taken care of automatically, All the OBamaest Luck!LOL Must commend the O camp Clap how they play these conferences / speeches primary targeting sentiments of uninformed or perhaps informed but Obamanized folks and are successful to NAIL them on each and every occasion. LOLLOL 
 
 
 
 


If we're done talking about those articles and want to discuss these other aspects nowWink, this is what i have to say-

Obama has been in office for less than a month and we are already slamming him. For what? For not being able to get people from all over to sign on the dotted line. Well, at least the guy is trying to get broad support. That's alot more than what Bush did. Bush ran an admin with the full-throated braod support of 2 individuals for the most part- Cheney and RumsfelTongue Wink Now dont tell me Obama dont have at least 2 people supporting him, some even from the opposition.

Also let's understand another thing about how congress works. A normal annual procedural budget bill often takes all the way till late summer to pass. Here we are looking at a veri complex package. Even if Obama hit the ground running, congress has it's own time-table.

Yeah, so far the worst thing we can say about Obama is that he looks to be struggling with some of the issues. But which sane person wouldn't! I'd rather he struggled with the issues than rush headlong into wrong decisions and mess up the country the way Bush did.

Somewheres Obama is also being slammed for other things. My answer to that is that even if Obama knew what was coming down the pike on the economic front when he was running, that dont mean he shouldn't keep reminding people of that and try to set realistic expectations. That's what good executives do. The lousy ones say "mission accomplished" when they're far from it.Wink

It's really amusing to see Obama being slammed after a few weeks in office especially coming after the Bush years of inaction on all things economics. If i didnt know better, i'd say it was as good a case of amnesia as there ever was one. Either that or a lot of gall, running down someone before he could even warm up the seat. Come to think of it, Could Bush even spell economics?LOL


 

@sharing article - Thanks.. I had couple of articles lined up this morning regarding that Florida college student got a job and SP is within 800 billion now.. but then thinking about time constraint  to clarify points, just in case there are contradiction/POVs on the article, said forget khali fokat why to - OX come come and hit me - LOLLOLLOL

 
@This post

 

Didn't we just started talking or discussing about Pres.Obama's tenure (on-going) in this post?

 

Other aspects mentioned in your post, have already shared my views as I assume you have read other posts/views related to Pres. O, nothing has changed as far as ma opinion goes, as time progresses they might, no guarantees, I maintain [This tenure IMHO is all about words/speeches/events other then Mr. O substance/wrong moves for political gains/socialism/uninformed people in for shock/ etc (gol mal hai bhai sab gol mal haiWinkLOL)].

 

Sorry dude, I really have nothing new to offer and re-agitating thoughts again and again as seen in past is of no gain. BTW - after reading couple of in-swingers on that article, on day 2 of play was hoping to get this 5 day match ends in favor of all, but starting the game all over again right from tossLOL ...uff apart from time, really have no energy.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20382

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 9:29pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by raj5000

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by raj5000


OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark."

Yeah whenever a politician says that, he is not telling the truth. Mr. Obama did not lie, but yeah he was not truthful either. George Bush was more honest in that sense, he would use his own dictionary and say something like 'No nosemark'. Of course there is no nosemark and thats the plain truth.
 
LOLLOL @ nosemarks...    Obama not being truthfull well one can say all part and parcel but somehow there has been series of flip flops that has carved a dishonest image of his..in someWink minds...and then hearing "not being truth" thoughts by someone whose body language/pitch project...all truth and nothing else..is something which isOuch

When Obama says there is no earmark, I do not perceive any deceit or intention to deceive in it. He believes that every spending program is going towards something that is important for the nation as a whole. In most cases I agree with him. However, on a broader politically perspective no legislative agenda can ever be earmark free. I genuinely believe that stormwater management, clean energy and highways are really important aspects of federal expenditure. But many people right here on this board itself will disagree. What is important federal spening for me is earmark for you. I think Obama is being genuine with what he believes is good. However, he is not truthful as in there is no bill that can be earmark free. But I see where some people might think he is being a flip flop or deceitful.

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork ' tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

Typically highways are a states responsibility to maintain. Some states do it through local taxes and some states do it through toll booths. Tolls are deterrent to business and increase transport costs, taxes punish citizens for highways they dont use. Federal funding to important transit/transport routes takes on the responsibility of interstate commerse. This is not your typical pork. But if you are someone in California, you wonder why should the feds spend on some highway for the hoosiers. 

Ultimately the fact is spending will always be relative. Something frivolous to you could be gold to the rest. This bill has several aspects which serve certain communities and groups only. There maybe broader purposes more than meets the eye.

I am glad you acknowledged that it is indeed State's responsibility to maintain highways...OK i understand the need and aims towards broader purpose...again am not seeing the need of this being part of URGENT ECONOMIC recovery plan. Basically fed GOVT is giving favors,  and slowly making way into automous state's affair..NOT needed atleast now...after economy stables...dems can work on these broader purposes more than that meets the eye *COUGH Max Govt..less freedom *COUGHLOL

For the average person expenditure on highways may be insignificant. However, interstate highways have a great impact on commerce. I personally believe that the interstate highway should be maintained by the federal government and intrastate routes maintained by the state.

Anyone who has driven in confusing roadways in India, Mexico etc appreciates the highways in USA. Large stretches of road, clearly marked exists, well connected network, quick and convenient. This highway system we love and cannot imagine traveling without is the result of one of the greatest pork barrels in history. FDR a World War veteran impressed with the Autobahn commissioned the interstate highway system under a 'national security, military expenditure' bill. Back then people were agitated why the President of a nation steeped in depression wants to spend money on roads.

Millions of dollars of goods are transported across the national highways. The midwest is just a large vastland of rolling plains, farms, dotted with few capsules of population. Transport is the lifeline here. Corn, Milk, Meat, Hay, livestock depends on the highway system. When the tri-state highway tolls increase - cost of local living increases. Large transporters like Fed Ex and UPS can absorb fees, but local transporters supporting local farms and industries must hike fees and may not remain competitive. In the mid-west we also spend million of dollars salting and clearing highways. Of course we can just let it become one big interstate skating rink. Moreover the past few winters have been brutal, streets in the cities dont get ploughed or salted because there is not enough budget. States cannot afford not to salt or clear the interstate. Add to the winter the fact that this is tornado country, these roads take a beating.

Most southern and west coast interstates do not take such a beating from the weather as well as the chemical salting, and heavy machinery like plows. Highway maintainence costs are much higher and drives transportation costs higher. If it goes to high midwestern farmers cannot compete with other farmers. As it is California is killing the indegenious dairy farming.

So earmark to the rest of the country, but we sure can do with some help on the highways. It would be nice if you told California that you cannot shoot up cows with BGH, so they are hormonally altered to produce more milk. But we will just take some money to clear the highway so we can deliver your milk at some economical cost.

__

OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference.

He said in Indiana, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

This is common sense. You cannot realistically predict economics. The reason this is inserted is not because Obama is misrepresenting facts. The problem is people misinterpret facts. Obama is citing the best case most optimistic scenario based on his teams economic assumptions. A person should be aware there could be starkly opposite dismal worst case scenario in another set of economic assumptions. This is a fact check for people who perceive Obama to be some sort of wizard who will wave a want and start millions of jobs dropping from trees.

Hold on pls "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years." where do you see he is emphasizing on as mentioned fact check.... thats sounds like a remark of certainity and driving agenda to once again fool the general public.

3-4 million. That is a wide range in itself showing that the statement itself is accepting a margin of error. Save or create is another wide range. Say we have 4 million jobs in exisitence. Creating 4 million jobs ends up with a grand total of 8 million jobs.  Saving 4 million jobs will keep the number static. If we say of 4 million all 4 million are in line to be chopped up and we save three million. The net result is 3 million jobs left and one million lost. The time frame is two years. So this is a net in two years. Which could mean we could have months of -10, -15 followed by +5, +5,+5,+5,+5,  The statement is implicitly accepting the statistical uncertainty of economics. Moreover his certainty is based on the fact that this plan had the higest probability of success under various scenarios. Most importantly you cannot fool the general fools, they are there already. Margin of error, statistical uncertainty, market volatility, alternate case scenrio, underlying assumptions are meant to be understood in economic statements.

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

Again this is a fact check for those who misinterpret facts. During the boom time businesses would spend heavily on consultants who would design cost saving IT systems. Ideally the new system repays itself by significant savings. Sometimes the ROI takes too long and sometimes, it just does not succeed. With technology out there there is huge cost and time saving potential, but it will take time trial and error.

I understand the value of electronic health records, but cashing it out in name of creating jobs by having long term plan of easing the efforts to bring in Nationalized Health care worries me.

It always baffles me why Americans are averse to nationalized health care. It has been successfully employed by most developed nations in the western world. We are good enough to tell other countries how to form a government, but we are not good enough to form a simple system under one department of our government.

But then again how does improving health care systems result in nationalized health care. An HIS is just like a system that connects various Wal-Greens stores so you can pick your prescription at home and when you vacation in Disney. The intent is to reduce the turnaround and paperwork for medical records, invoicing etc. Why is Wal-Mart so competitive in the retail industry and keep costs down - SMART - Store Merchandising and Retail Technology - its own inhouse inventory management system that connects the stores, distributors and suppliers across the world in one streamlined database. Any health care provider that can develop can be the cost leader in health care.

___

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake. ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for health and human services secretary and Nancy Killefer as Obama's chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.

Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.

That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

This was just a low blow to me. I agree with most aspects of this artice, but this one is just misreprentative. It does not really put facts in perspective. Timothy Geithner paid his taxes late. Tom Daschle still owed back taxes. Geithner's amount is a small error that any large income person could make in a year or few. Daschle's was continuous oversight. Finally backtaxes do not always automatically translate to intentional evasion. It was irrespobsible of Obama to miss background checking Daschle's IRS history knowing very well that the opposition is eager to dig dirt. But taxes apart Tom Daschle's history in health care reform made him an ideal candidate.

However, this dirt digging aint nowhere as low as the Demcrats fell when the opposed appointing Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Back then that was a really mean low blow by the dems.

I agree, this one I will give it in O's favor, he made the choice and standing by it, assuming he would take full responsibility BUT again after making such a decision he should NOT preach millions of Americans...that OUR KIDS should understand and know that there are NO SHORT cuts in lifeWinkWink

History will know that Obama becoming President is no shortcut in life. It was a journey that started in 1849 with Harriet Tubman, and its not over yet. Besides I think we expect to much from our politicians.

___

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s ' yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January ' the most in nearly 35 years ' and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

Yeah I agree with this one. Too much economic fear factor. Americans are as it is addicted to running around like chickens with their head cut of. Its like Bush's be afraid of the terrorists has been replaced with be very afraid of the falling stock market. The stock may hit you in the head and you will die. But then there are some thick headed people who live in the illusion that nothing is wrong and everything is a conspiracy theory. Valentines day is a long drawn hoax by Hallmark.

LOLLOLLOL Whatever it is just spell it out in moderation, minus the hot spice that might really spread panic ( for whatever reasonWink). Uncertainity of future is sure one of the important factor why Wall Street doesn't seems to recover and forget the thick heads..set them free at 5000000 feet in sky... in the name of free market / NO GOVT intervention during crisis / this, that and the other freedomLOLLOL
 

 
Edit - forgot to mention, great response... that article/share(ur welcome btw) didn't represented my exact views couldn't stop myself writing after reading ur comments... One more confession, I started off commenting on ur previous post (the long one) ... after typing for a while...checked... I was only 1/3 way thru...so gave upLOL, is that (long post) ur tactic  to keep away anti Obama viewsWinkLOL

It is called filibustering. You will see Republicans talking a lot too now that the Dems in the house and senate. 

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20382

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 9:47pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by return_to_hades

First of all Raj, thanks for sharing.I was reading this article at work today. I always check yahoo news. Yahoo news always features fact checks, myth or truth on politicians and political agenda, which is highly informative.

Yep.  With you here.


This was just a low blow to me. I agree with most aspects of this artice, but this one is just misreprentative. It does not really put facts in perspective. Timothy Geithner paid his taxes late. Tom Daschle still owed back taxes. Geithner's amount is a small error that any large income person could make in a year or few. Daschle's was continuous oversight. Finally backtaxes do not always automatically translate to intentional evasion. It was irrespobsible of Obama to miss background checking Daschle's IRS history knowing very well that the opposition is eager to dig dirt. But taxes apart Tom Daschle's history in health care reform made him an ideal candidate.

This line caught my attention!  Do you know the extensive and exhaustive questionnaire all would be/wanna be/hopeful cabinet ministers or Obama core team members had to fill out when they applied for the positions!  I posted that questionnaire on Presidential debate thread.  You should google it and take a look at it!  What's the point of all that background check when one keeps messing up on one single point over and over again when it comes to appointing people for key positions? 

I have not seen this job questionnaire but from other state and federal background checks it has fields for criminal investigations, or back taxes owed. As far as I know there is a law that prohibits job discrimination based on past criminal records. Only exceptions being law enforcement in criminal cases and IRS or appropriations in tax issues. Unless intentionally evading taxes no one knows they owe backtaxes unless audited. No one intentionally evading taxes would admit it, nor do they have to (right against self incrimination). So Obama would have had to have the IRS audit all his nominations. Either he was too naive to know that he should have done so, or he had an irresponsible oversight. It is not as bad as people make it seem as if he is intentionally trying to approve fraud. Technically Tom Daschle is still legally eligible for the post he was being considered for, but Obama had to relieve him because of ethical concerns.

As far as any larger income person making an unintentional errors or two is not the same as public's representatives making the same errors as well!  They are held to a higher level of scrutiny and responsibility. So we agree that we set different standards for people. I differ with most people here. I am of the school that leaders should be capable of governing others, governing self is a plus on the side. I consider getting away as the reward for living under the microscope.   Given how intensive the background search was, there's no reason why Obama should have miss out on this crucial fact the first time around and then to repeat it the second time around!

We miss out a most important fact here. Obama admitted in public he screwed up. We have not had a President including Clinton who owed up to a problem. Who fully placed the responsibility and accountability on their own shoulders. Despite so many serious shortcomings the Bush administration never told the country sorry, we did something wrong. Politicians rarely say sorry I screwed up, they like to pass the blame. Is it of any significance or importance to the country that Obama accepted the blame and owed up instead of passing the buck?



Rest later.  I wish I could stay back and answer all the posts right now.  But, to tell you frankly, I have to brush up my familiarity with the stimulus package before I dig in deeper here! 

Here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:

The bill is over 600 pages. Can you handle it. This thread is not even a smidgeon of the bill.



Edited by return_to_hades - 11 February 2009 at 9:51pm

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 10:23pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20382

Posted: 11 February 2009 at 10:38pm | IP Logged


For all you Bama Loverson there.

PS: These are quotes from the audio book 'Dreams From My Father'. Obama narrated the book himself for the audio version. These quotes are when he talks about another biracial like him, but with a lot more colorful personality and mouth. Even though this is from a critically acclaimed book, please note that these are clips that include severe profanity. Do not listen if you are offended by profanity.

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.