Skip to Next Poll »
3
DEBATE :
100 days have come and Gone. What do you think about Obama now?

Have you seen a difference yet with this administration?
| Closed on 12/31/09 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, History | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
27 Fans 
11%a. HELL NO !!!!!!
15%b. YES !!!!!!
26%c. HE IS OUR MAN
11%d. WHATEVER...HE SUCKS
30%e. WE NEEDED A CHANGE
7%f. WHAT WERE WE THINKING?

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#2 | 1765 days ago

I think everyone has come to expect sooooo much so fast from Pres. Obama, that they are turned off by the actions he has made up to now - the same wasn't required of Presidents Clinton or Bush when they entered the White House...everyone said "Give their Administration a year or so, and watch things work"; not so of Obama - "WE NEED IT NOW" has been the attitude, with little wiggle room to work with.  We should be supporting him and this Administration as best possible to get things righted, and stop judging so quickly!! 
HE IS OUR MAN  
  
37 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1765 days ago
lovinmyjeffgordon (+)

Respect for you,many times over my friend
#2 | 1765 days ago

I think everyone has come to expect sooooo much so fast from Pres. Obama, that they are turned off by the actions he has made up to now - the same wasn't required of Presidents Clinton or Bush when they entered the White House...everyone said "Give their Administration a year or so, and watch things work"; not so of Obama - "WE NEED IT NOW" has been the attitude, with little wiggle room to work with.  We should be supporting him and this Administration as best possible to get things righted, and stop judging so quickly!! 
HE IS OUR MAN  
#3 | 1765 days ago

I did vote for Hillary in the primary, but I'm still standing behind my vote for Obama 100% for the presidential election.  Those that follow politics (both domestic and international) and are NOT skewed by party lines/media commentators alone will attest that he has done quite a bit to help this country out already, and is on the right track.  There is still a lot of work to be done, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and there is quite a bit that he inherited that needs fixing!
HE IS OUR MAN  
#4 | 1765 days ago

(Edited by RunningDawg)
I am sorry but I am not seeing what he has done for this country yet.  I keep hoping he will do something, and I will keep a watch.  I also feel I am NOT skewed by any sort of party lines.  Yet the data is flowing in, and we are not going in the right direction.

I chose not to enter this poll since an Other was not an option.  I do not feel that strongly against him, nor am I pleased with what has happened.
#5 | 1765 days ago

I took years and years to get us in this mess and it's going to take just as long to fix it. I don't think it would have mattered who won the election.
WE NEEDED A CHANGE  
#6 | 1765 days ago

RunningDawg wrote:
I am sorry but I am not seeing what he has done for this country yet.  I keep hoping he will do something, and I will keep a watch.  I also feel I am NOT skewed by any sort of party lines.  Yet the data is flowing in, and we are not going in the right direction.

I chose not to enter this poll since an Other was not an option.  I do not feel that strongly against him, nor am I pleased with what has happened.
Well globally-speaking, the US is ranked #1 again (for the first time in years) as being a country that is held in "high regard" by other nations.  Before President Obama took office, the US wasn't ranked high enough to even make the charts (which I believe went up to 100).  As trivial as this may seem to some, it is actually a big deal as it gives our nation more prestige and therefore more leverage in dealing with other nations financially (through trade, lending, etc.), as well as diplomatically.

Domestically, his stimulus package (for as much backlash as it has gotten) actually averted us from a depression.  Yes, we are still in a bad recession, but every finance/economics expert that I've heard comment on it has said that it would have been far worse if not for the bailout of financial institutions, home-buyer rebates, Cash for Clunkers program, etc. 
HE IS OUR MAN  
#7 | 1765 days ago

DeeRigga wrote:
I think everyone has come to expect sooooo much so fast from Pres. Obama, that they are turned off by the actions he has made up to now - the same wasn't required of Presidents Clinton or Bush when they entered the White House...everyone said "Give their Administration a year or so, and watch things work"; not so of Obama - "WE NEED IT NOW" has been the attitude, with little wiggle room to work with.  We should be supporting him and this Administration as best possible to get things righted, and stop judging so quickly!! 


Nicely Put!
HE IS OUR MAN  
#8 | 1765 days ago



As long as the National Gov't increases in size, every president will get this grade!  No matter what anyone trys to say, IT won't fix our country!
HELL NO !!!!!!  
#9 | 1765 days ago

Janet... you know I love ya girl BUT... WHERE in the US is the country "doing better"? Please tell me and I'll move there.

When you consider he has done nothing but dramatically increase the national debt at a time that jobs are being lossed at an alarming rate (meaning lossed local, state and federal revenue... not to mention hardship on Americans in general). The ONLY "jobs" he "may" have created are Government jobs represented by a union and even at that most Government agencies are trimming down like the Postal Service and local and state governments. He has surrounded himself with the exact same economic and financial "advisers" that were an intricle part of the problem which manifested itself thru the Clinton and Bush years. Not to also mention that his closest advisors have the least amount of "Business" experience or business background than any other sitting President in US history.....by far!
He is trying to pull the country out of this dismal situation using the same type of logic as did California or countries like Dubai, Greece and Ireland and if you havent noticed..... all those places are financially collapsing faster than a cardboard house in a rainstorm.
So AGAIN I ask...... Where is it getting better? I truly wish I knew what you see in this guy and why you believe he is moving in the "right" direction cuz for the life of me I just don't see it and shudder to think where we are gonna be 1, 2 or 5 yrs down the road following his ideas.
#10 | 1765 days ago

I have bronchitis, so i don't feel like debating this now.  He said he was going to fundamentally change this nation and that he is doing.  I say throw them all out democrats and republicans alike and lets get some new blood in Washington.
WHATEVER...HE SUCKS  
#11 | 1765 days ago

I think we should stop political polls on the Q. We're only making enemies.
#12 | 1765 days ago
vindog (+)

I'm at the "wait and see" point right now!  10 months is not enough time to judge ANY Elected President (even if it was McCain)- especially considering the "S$%T STORM" this Country was in when he took office! Our NATION was at the Brink of a complete financial collapse (or depression- for lack of a better term) and we were (and STILL are) involved in two wars- just that alone is enough to give any man bad heartburn to say the least! It's gonna take (possibly) two FULL Years to actually make any assessment on "how" this Country has improved (or gotten worse) since President Obama took Office! Anybody who HONESTLY FEELS that they can Judge him RIGHT NOW- really doesn't want to see him succeed anyway!
WE NEEDED A CHANGE  
#13 | 1765 days ago
marytrammell31 (+)

(Edited by marytrammell31)
Everyone is so quick to jump out and judge everyone else.. I can not see he is hurting the economy. I am siding with Vinney, He has not been in office long enough for anyone to assess the good or bad he has done.. Everything has a trickle effect. and it will be awhile before we will be able to see what that effect is.  He did not start the wars, he got in the middle of them.. I do not agree with all his policies, but that is my opinion.. My main concern is our health care  policies, I do not think the government should be able control that. .... There are always going to be procrastinators regardless of who is in office. So give the man a chance to see what he can or can not do.. And in my opinion, it is congress that causes the mess, the president can only sign or veto a bill and pass it to congress, that is where the problem lies.  Not with the President, per say.. Again that is my understanding. And if I am wrong feel free to correct me. .. Jason if you think for one minute Hillary could handle the job, you need to get your IQ tested. Her hubby would have have been pulling the strings there. As far as companies going bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the Economy or the president.. Look at the money they were wasting they were all living high on the hog, not thinking of the consequences..  Good grief, they deserved to belly up.. As long as taxes do not go up I have no complaint what so ever.. AND I DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH ANYONE'S RELIGION. That is not my business.
WE NEEDED A CHANGE  
#14 | 1765 days ago
lovinmyjeffgordon (+)

Well, i think Bill did pull some strings, but it was on Monica....lololo
#15 | 1765 days ago

the bad thing about political polls is that the people bashing whoever in office are olaying on thier computers answering silly polls while they are trying to improve this country my advice to you let him run the country and his administration and try to improve this country ,until you can do better which i doubt if you can do
YES !!!!!!  
#16 | 1765 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Well globally-speaking, the US is ranked #1 again (for the first time in years) as being a country that is held in "high regard" by other nations.  Before President Obama took office, the US wasn't ranked high enough to even make the charts (which I believe went up to 100).  As trivial as this may seem to some, it is actually a big deal as it gives our nation more prestige and therefore more leverage in dealing with other nations financially (through trade, lending, etc.), as well as diplomatically.

Domestically, his stimulus package (for as much backlash as it has gotten) actually averted us from a depression.  Yes, we are still in a bad recession, but every finance/economics expert that I've heard comment on it has said that it would have been far worse if not for the bailout of financial institutions, home-buyer rebates, Cash for Clunkers program, etc. 
I am sorry but we will have to disagree. The "High regard" is a rating that is not very well regarded domestically or internationally. And it has little to nothing to do with trade negotiations, or financial dealings. China gave the President a verbal spanking on our economy when he visited there last month, and they hold most of our loans. I have heard nothing about how he "saved" us from a depression, in fact we are still headed that way. Cash for clunkers was a bad deal all the way around. Dealers are still waiting for the cash promised them, and it gave a false push up in new car sales. Dealers use the used cars to bolster their sales margins. Since the "clunkers" were destroyed used car sales fell significantly. Now we are finding that the car dealers are still waiting on money and with new car sales dropping back to expected levels, that industry is hurting again. Bailing out the financial institutions was not as necessary as first thought, though if they were to loan the money the economy would have been better off. But the banks have been loaning money but with very tight restrictions, resulting in not many loans going out to stimulate the economy, thus creating jobs. So results there are mixed. Home-buyer rebates, well see above. In general I am hopeful, but my business is slow, and layoffs have been many. Unemployment is on the rise and the money the government has been printing to make up short falls will cause inflation over the next few years. Economy is a robust thing and can recover itself with out too much interference. But the current congress wants to regulate it and that will push things in a different direction and mostly a less than desirable direction.
#17 | 1765 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
I have bronchitis, so i don't feel like debating this now.  He said he was going to fundamentally change this nation and that he is doing.  I say throw them all out democrats and republicans alike and lets get some new blood in Washington.

Pat,

I hope you feel better soon.

YES !!!!!!  
#18 | 1765 days ago

zzj000 wrote:
Janet... you know I love ya girl BUT... WHERE in the US is the country "doing better"? Please tell me and I'll move there.

When you consider he has done nothing but dramatically increase the national debt at a time that jobs are being lossed at an alarming rate (meaning lossed local, state and federal revenue... not to mention hardship on Americans in general). The ONLY "jobs" he "may" have created are Government jobs represented by a union and even at that most Government agencies are trimming down like the Postal Service and local and state governments. He has surrounded himself with the exact same economic and financial "advisers" that were an intricle part of the problem which manifested itself thru the Clinton and Bush years. Not to also mention that his closest advisors have the least amount of "Business" experience or business background than any other sitting President in US history.....by far!
He is trying to pull the country out of this dismal situation using the same type of logic as did California or countries like Dubai, Greece and Ireland and if you havent noticed..... all those places are financially collapsing faster than a cardboard house in a rainstorm.
So AGAIN I ask...... Where is it getting better? I truly wish I knew what you see in this guy and why you believe he is moving in the "right" direction cuz for the life of me I just don't see it and shudder to think where we are gonna be 1, 2 or 5 yrs down the road following his ideas.
Now Gary, don't put words in my mouth.    You know I don't stand for THAT.
I didn't say the country is doing better ... what I did was mention certain actions the president has taken that has lessened the bad impact of certain economic and diplomatic stressors, and things that have helped make things a little "less worse", if  you will. 

As for needing "business" experience to run the nation ... remember that George Bush #2 had "business experience" and look how far that got him (and our country under his reign).

And don't forget, like I said, it's not all going to be accomplished overnight.  Dee had a great point ... everyone is expecting him to take years worth of terrible leadership and policies, and turn it into some pretty picture over the course of a few months.  Not going to happen, no matter WHO was in charge.  Over time, if all of the president's ideas come to fruition, jobs WILL be created (through infrastructure improvements, "green" jobs, etc.).

PS - RunningDawg (I'm not ignoring you  ), experts from all sides seem to agree that inflation is inevitable down the road.  Would have happened with McCain, Hillary ... anyone who got the job.  Also, most people don't seem to realize (not saying you're one of them, by the way) that every economic crisis is different, and there is no standard "formula" for fixing recessions and/or depressions.  I think anyone with a fundamental knowledge of economics would agree that the old-school Reaganomics style of tax cuts to revive the economy will not work in this particular case (what good are lower taxes when people don't have incomes to tax?).  In a situation like this, the best solution, in my opinion, is to have more government action to help stimulate the economy through spending.  Hell, in a recent interview even one of the chief economic advisors to Reagan during his administration agreed that lowering taxes would not work, and he advocated government spending and an increase in SOME taxes.  I just think that all of these programs, while not a finite solution, are helping to stimulate the economy (as the numbers, overall, are showing in GDP and increased consumer spending) and it's a step in the right direction.
HE IS OUR MAN  
#19 | 1764 days ago

I hope you feel better soon Pat.
HELL NO !!!!!!  
#20 | 1764 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Now Gary, don't put words in my mouth.    You know I don't stand for THAT.
I didn't say the country is doing better ... what I did was mention certain actions the president has taken that has lessened the bad impact of certain economic and diplomatic stressors, and things that have helped make things a little "less worse", if  you will. 

As for needing "business" experience to run the nation ... remember that George Bush #2 had "business experience" and look how far that got him (and our country under his reign).

And don't forget, like I said, it's not all going to be accomplished overnight.  Dee had a great point ... everyone is expecting him to take years worth of terrible leadership and policies, and turn it into some pretty picture over the course of a few months.  Not going to happen, no matter WHO was in charge.  Over time, if all of the president's ideas come to fruition, jobs WILL be created (through infrastructure improvements, "green" jobs, etc.).

PS - RunningDawg (I'm not ignoring you  ), experts from all sides seem to agree that inflation is inevitable down the road.  Would have happened with McCain, Hillary ... anyone who got the job.  Also, most people don't seem to realize (not saying you're one of them, by the way) that every economic crisis is different, and there is no standard "formula" for fixing recessions and/or depressions.  I think anyone with a fundamental knowledge of economics would agree that the old-school Reaganomics style of tax cuts to revive the economy will not work in this particular case (what good are lower taxes when people don't have incomes to tax?).  In a situation like this, the best solution, in my opinion, is to have more government action to help stimulate the economy through spending.  Hell, in a recent interview even one of the chief economic advisors to Reagan during his administration agreed that lowering taxes would not work, and he advocated government spending and an increase in SOME taxes.  I just think that all of these programs, while not a finite solution, are helping to stimulate the economy (as the numbers, overall, are showing in GDP and increased consumer spending) and it's a step in the right direction.
I don't stalk THIS WOMAN for no reason - she is funny AND edu-ma-cated!! 

All funny-mess aside, Janet's points are strong and valid, and without bashing the last two terms, DUBYA was the crest of the wave, and we watched it crash down on us as he scurried out of office with his rat-bastard VP (or ventriloquist, depending on how you saw him)...as he went, so did the SnP's, the CEOs and other large equity-owning businesses needing bailouts - oh, I think it was a bit too much to bail out what we did - but we also should be HUNTING DOWN EVERY CEO who left these corporations with "bonuses" and salaries that provided them tens and hundreds of millions of OUR dollarsin the past 3-6 years, who have resigned 'suddenly' before a major financial collaspe of one of these many companies accepting bailout funds.  Get these "NO COLLAR" criminals (you can't even say white, because they didn't work at all!!) and find all their "earnings" and suck each account dry and put that back into the economy. 

THAT would stimulate something!!
HE IS OUR MAN  
#21 | 1764 days ago
McGregorMick (+)

Give him some time!
#22 | 1764 days ago

BigBasin1977 wrote:

Pat,

I hope you feel better soon.

Thank you Shirley.  I am starting to feel a little better now.  Hugs.
WHATEVER...HE SUCKS  
#23 | 1764 days ago

blondie45044 wrote:
I hope you feel better soon Pat.
Thanks Lisa.  Hugs
WHATEVER...HE SUCKS  
#24 | 1764 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Now Gary, don't put words in my mouth.    You know I don't stand for THAT.
I didn't say the country is doing better ... what I did was mention certain actions the president has taken that has lessened the bad impact of certain economic and diplomatic stressors, and things that have helped make things a little "less worse", if  you will. 

As for needing "business" experience to run the nation ... remember that George Bush #2 had "business experience" and look how far that got him (and our country under his reign).

And don't forget, like I said, it's not all going to be accomplished overnight.  Dee had a great point ... everyone is expecting him to take years worth of terrible leadership and policies, and turn it into some pretty picture over the course of a few months.  Not going to happen, no matter WHO was in charge.  Over time, if all of the president's ideas come to fruition, jobs WILL be created (through infrastructure improvements, "green" jobs, etc.).

PS - RunningDawg (I'm not ignoring you  ), experts from all sides seem to agree that inflation is inevitable down the road.  Would have happened with McCain, Hillary ... anyone who got the job.  Also, most people don't seem to realize (not saying you're one of them, by the way) that every economic crisis is different, and there is no standard "formula" for fixing recessions and/or depressions.  I think anyone with a fundamental knowledge of economics would agree that the old-school Reaganomics style of tax cuts to revive the economy will not work in this particular case (what good are lower taxes when people don't have incomes to tax?).  In a situation like this, the best solution, in my opinion, is to have more government action to help stimulate the economy through spending.  Hell, in a recent interview even one of the chief economic advisors to Reagan during his administration agreed that lowering taxes would not work, and he advocated government spending and an increase in SOME taxes.  I just think that all of these programs, while not a finite solution, are helping to stimulate the economy (as the numbers, overall, are showing in GDP and increased consumer spending) and it's a step in the right direction.
I never said anything about lowering taxes (though I think it would certainly help for middle class families struggling right now).  I am against RAISING taxes.  Small business is the key and has always been the key and catalyst that starts the economy on the road to recovery, by creating more jobs getting more people with income to spend.  Anyone with an understanding of economic history realizes that is how we will get out of this mess.  Unfortunately the current administration is very un-friendly to small business with the tax burden being put upon them.  The thing I think you are misunderstanding is the inflation could be avoided with out having such a huge deficit.  But that ship has sailed and we are headed right into the storm.  Unless Government spending is reigned in and more fiscally responsible people are in charge we are going to be suffering for a long time.
#25 | 1764 days ago

RunningDawg wrote:
I never said anything about lowering taxes (though I think it would certainly help for middle class families struggling right now).  I am against RAISING taxes.  Small business is the key and has always been the key and catalyst that starts the economy on the road to recovery, by creating more jobs getting more people with income to spend.  Anyone with an understanding of economic history realizes that is how we will get out of this mess.  Unfortunately the current administration is very un-friendly to small business with the tax burden being put upon them.  The thing I think you are misunderstanding is the inflation could be avoided with out having such a huge deficit.  But that ship has sailed and we are headed right into the storm.  Unless Government spending is reigned in and more fiscally responsible people are in charge we are going to be suffering for a long time.
Oh c'mon, now.  That ship sailed YEARS ago.  Iraq, anyone?  Inflation is inevitable, and has been for quite some time now.  There's nothing we can do now to prevent it ... it's just a matter of when it's coming and how bad it will be. 

Also, we will definitely have to disagree on the recovery of the economy.  There is no one right way to fix an economic crisis.  Never has been, never will be ... it's just the nature of the beast.  This recession is grounded in the same problems we had during the Great Depression.  Money isn't circulating, and economists would label it a "liquidity trap".  Was the stimulus package lauded a bit too much?  Sure ... that's politics.  But the idea behind it was solid and correct.  In order to dig ourselves out of this economy, we NEED government spending and regulation to counter the "supply-side" economics that were put into play in the early 80s by the Reagan administration (and I'm not saying that was a bad thing ... it was the right thing for our economy at THAT time).
HE IS OUR MAN  
#26 | 1764 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Oh c'mon, now.  That ship sailed YEARS ago.  Iraq, anyone?  Inflation is inevitable, and has been for quite some time now.  There's nothing we can do now to prevent it ... it's just a matter of when it's coming and how bad it will be. 

Also, we will definitely have to disagree on the recovery of the economy.  There is no one right way to fix an economic crisis.  Never has been, never will be ... it's just the nature of the beast.  This recession is grounded in the same problems we had during the Great Depression.  Money isn't circulating, and economists would label it a "liquidity trap".  Was the stimulus package lauded a bit too much?  Sure ... that's politics.  But the idea behind it was solid and correct.  In order to dig ourselves out of this economy, we NEED government spending and regulation to counter the "supply-side" economics that were put into play in the early 80s by the Reagan administration (and I'm not saying that was a bad thing ... it was the right thing for our economy at THAT time).
You Can not be blaming Reagan can you?  do you have a background in Economics?  if not you might want to read Dr. Thomas Sowells book on basic Economics.  It is a great read, and was required during my economic classes.
#27 | 1764 days ago

RunningDawg wrote:
You Can not be blaming Reagan can you?  do you have a background in Economics?  if not you might want to read Dr. Thomas Sowells book on basic Economics.  It is a great read, and was required during my economic classes.
Did you actually read my post?    Here's an excerpt...

"In order to dig ourselves out of this economy, we NEED government spending and regulation to counter the "supply-side" economics that were put into play in the early 80s by the Reagan administration (and I'm not saying that was a bad thing ... it was the right thing for our economy at THAT time)."
HE IS OUR MAN  
#28 | 1764 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Did you actually read my post?    Here's an excerpt...

"In order to dig ourselves out of this economy, we NEED government spending and regulation to counter the "supply-side" economics that were put into play in the early 80s by the Reagan administration (and I'm not saying that was a bad thing ... it was the right thing for our economy at THAT time)."
And by the way, that excerpt is not just my own opinion ... it's the opinion of one of the chief economic advisors during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations (Bruce Bartlett).

And yes, I do have a background in Economics ... don't know who has more of an extensive background in it, and don't particularly care since I'm basing this on my opinion on the matter (since that's what this IS all about ... opinions), which is based on not only general economic knowledge, but research and input from other experts in that area.

(Yes, I meant to reply to my own comment, just to emphasize what I am referring to.)
HE IS OUR MAN  
#29 | 1764 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
And by the way, that excerpt is not just my own opinion ... it's the opinion of one of the chief economic advisors during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations (Bruce Bartlett).

And yes, I do have a background in Economics ... don't know who has more of an extensive background in it, and don't particularly care since I'm basing this on my opinion on the matter (since that's what this IS all about ... opinions), which is based on not only general economic knowledge, but research and input from other experts in that area.

(Yes, I meant to reply to my own comment, just to emphasize what I am referring to.)
Yes I read your post.  I saw that you tried to toss a bone by saying it was needed at the time.....But having lived through it, I saw how it worked and how we recovered with small business leading the way.  I mearly suggested for you to read Dr Sowell's book because it really opened many eyes when he wrote it.  It is a great book about economics and it's long term and short term affects.
#30 | 1764 days ago

RunningDawg wrote:
Yes I read your post.  I saw that you tried to toss a bone by saying it was needed at the time.....But having lived through it, I saw how it worked and how we recovered with small business leading the way.  I mearly suggested for you to read Dr Sowell's book because it really opened many eyes when he wrote it.  It is a great book about economics and it's long term and short term affects.
I wasn't simply "toss(ing) a bone" ... I genuinely believe that it was a good strategy at the time.  Must have been, it worked, right?  But I also believe that not every economic crisis is the same as another.  No two wars are alike, so you can't fight them on the same terms (look at Vietnam) or you'll fail.  Same goes for economics.  The problems with our economy now are different from the problems we faced in the late 70s-early 80s, so we need a different plan of attack to get back on track.  Small business is an intrical part of our economy ... I don't disagree with you there.  But focusing on one aspect of our economy alone, in my opinion, is not going to solve all the woes we're facing. 
Tax increases are inevitable in this country due to impending inflation and uncontrolled entitlements for our ever-aging society.  The key is to be able to generate more tax revenue while not curbing Americans' incentives to work hard and save, thus not negatively impacting the economy as a whole as much. 
You've got the economics background ... what's YOUR suggestion? 
HE IS OUR MAN  
#31 | 1764 days ago

*Looks for boobs*

"Carry on!"

*SLAM*
HELL NO !!!!!!  
#32 | 1764 days ago

Just for giggles;

#33 | 1764 days ago

(Edited by RunningDawg)
janet011685 wrote:
I wasn't simply "toss(ing) a bone" ... I genuinely believe that it was a good strategy at the time.  Must have been, it worked, right?  But I also believe that not every economic crisis is the same as another.  No two wars are alike, so you can't fight them on the same terms (look at Vietnam) or you'll fail.  Same goes for economics.  The problems with our economy now are different from the problems we faced in the late 70s-early 80s, so we need a different plan of attack to get back on track.  Small business is an intrical part of our economy ... I don't disagree with you there.  But focusing on one aspect of our economy alone, in my opinion, is not going to solve all the woes we're facing. 
Tax increases are inevitable in this country due to impending inflation and uncontrolled entitlements for our ever-aging society.  The key is to be able to generate more tax revenue while not curbing Americans' incentives to work hard and save, thus not negatively impacting the economy as a whole as much. 
You've got the economics background ... what's YOUR suggestion? 
I never suggested we ONLY cater to small business. But historically the sector to lead us out of an economic down turn has always been small business. Innovation and new direction gives opportunities for expansion and creating new jobs, to drive un-employment down, and give more income. So neglecting that sector is going to lead to failure. As for the problems being different now than from the 70s, well they are not as far apart as you would imagine. Unemployment, weakening dollar, trade and budget deficits. All leading to our shrinking image on the world front. It will take a bold leader to get us out of this mess, and so far I have not seen any of that from our current leader (I remain hopeful) .    In fact we have seen a change but not in the direction many of us were anticipating, nor hoping for. Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent? China is worried about owning so much American debt. Japan is tiring of an American military base in Okinawa, and wants to redefine its relationship with us. South Korea is starting to doubt American commitment to keep it safe from North Korea. By the end of this presidential term, we may add another $9 trillion to our already astronomical $11 trillion debt. Unemployment has already topped 10 percent. This quarter's trade deficit reached a near-historic high. Our debtors and oil exporters talk of scrapping the dollar as the common international currency. All of that is making our presence on the world stage less and less important, which might not be such a big deal except that if our economy goes in the tank we can and will drag the rest of the world into the tank with us. Here is where we really disagree, I do not think tax increases are or should be inevitable, the impending inflation can not be avoided entirely, but it can be managed if we take steps now. Put more money back into the pockets of the consumers and let them stimulate the economy. The stimulus packages have not worked as well as even the most optimistic of supporters had hoped it would. I for one have faith that more money in the hands of consumers will help jump start the economy more than if it is in the hands of congressional and banking fat cats. Charlie consumer with an extra 5K in his pocket might put that addition on to his house. Or Sally Citizen might pay off her debts thus freeing more income for her later. The bank who owned her debts will now (hopefully) loan more out to other consumers creating business. By creating more business and more income that will increase the tax base by way of sales taxes, and increased income for people thus increasing the income tax our government will receive. That will be good for all.



Sorry I wrote it in word and cut and pasted it.  hence the crappy font.
#34 | 1764 days ago

I guess what I am saying is the United States needs to re-establish itself as financially credible and responsible so that when we lecture — about everything from global warming to Iranian nukes — we do so from a position of strength. That means, we need to stop borrowing other nations' money.

America also can't afford to keep importing high-priced oil that we won't produce at home. And we should stop promising ever more government entitlements to ever more voters that we can't even begin to pay for.
#35 | 1763 days ago

 Excuse, me, too high expectations too quick, is not that good for centuries aged democracy, we are nascent democratic nation, we have our strengths and also weaknesses, we have diverse languages, 384 of them, some with scripts, some are dialects, diverse regions, diverse cuisines, and of course we have divergent opinions, but when any calamity hits the society and the nation, we are one unified nation to conquer.Jai Hind. Jai Hind, Jai Hind.
WE NEEDED A CHANGE  
#36 | 1763 days ago

Well...I believe that ALL politicians should have to RUN SOMETHING!  Many congressmen and senators have NO CLUE what it is like to meet a payroll.  Many of these "GENIUSES think that if they raise taxes by, say, $10 billion for 2010...that they will HAVE $10 BILLION in 2010...but....it is NOT A ZERO-SUM GAIN.  People will find a way to shelter their money...people won't work as hard to achieve because they might get punished (higher taxes) because of achievement...every time in history that taxes have been CUT.....REVENUES INCREASE TO THE TREASURY!  Kennedy cut top marginal rate from 90% to 70%...and REVENUES WENT UP...REAGAN CUT TAXES...and we had RECORD collections...If my taxes are cut, say, in half...that means I have more money to invest in my business, or go out to eat more...or buy a "better" television/computer/leaf blower, etc.  My point is that by MY spending MY money....the tax base will be BROADENED...MORE people working...more people having more income to spend....more jobs available...yes, it is "trickle down", but it WORKS!!!
WHATEVER...HE SUCKS  
#37 | 1763 days ago

Let the man be, at least he didn't invade no country....yet
That's a good thing
HE IS OUR MAN  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Filter Error 9/29
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/29/14
8 opinions | 27 comments | Last by ohwell_
Filter Error 9/26
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/26/14
5 opinions | 24 comments | Last by kteacher
Filter Error 9/24
Asked by ms_hippie_queen | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/24/14
9 opinions | 10 comments | Last by woody050681
Filter Error 9/25
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/25/14
8 opinions | 19 comments | Last by Cali_Kat
Filter Error 9/23
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/23/14
6 opinions | 20 comments | Last by Beaneaters