world

Obama faces heady challenges, and they're growing

72 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

People should not expect miracles as soon as Obama takes office. It took 8 years of GWB to get us into this mess, and it won't change overnight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember george bush was experienced at running a baseball team, oil company and Texas before he took the reins of the country.

Barack Obama has no leadership experience at running anything.

Barack Obama will be find. It's not going to be easy, george is leaving a hell of a mess, but Barack can do it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the truth is no one knows how he will do. he has no real legislative track record and has absolutely no executive experience. good luck Mr. Obama We are going to need it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is nothing compared to the challenges the next president faces.

"Barack Obama has no leadership experience at running anything."

And yet he was elected president. Go figure. No worries, I'm sure some great ideas will come to him as he takes those drags on his smokes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i thought i heard one of his supporters proclaim he was going to put gas in our cars, pay our mortages, not worry about nuttin. Hell I'd settle for a George Foreman grill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Now, Obama sounds dire"

Change we can believe in!

The Audacity of Hope!

"Hell I'd settle for a George Foreman grill"

Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He has no experience of running anything. Obviously running a campaign to get yourself elected president of the USA is nothing compared to the challenges of sitting in a box seat watching baseball games night after night. However, on the bright side, he has no experience of running anything into the ground either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i hope when obama finally steps to the plate GJ, his abilities match his rhetoric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if Obama having 'no experience' is nothing like GWB's experience, which led to the ruin of the US domestically and abroad (two wars, plunging the economy into turmoil, turning the US into a radical Christian state with no stem cell research, etc.), then Obama coming in clean is far better than having experience like the moron bush.

And you guys better get on your knees and count your lucky stars you have a young buck like Obama who's going to take care of all this for you and clean up your hero's mess; if it were McCain who had won the election he'd have already died from the pressure, and the dufus Palin would be prepping the nukes for Russia and the country of Africa.

This is going to be a stressful time for Obama, as it would be for any incoming president who has to take on the absolute disaster GWB left behind, but he'll pull you through it kids... don't you worry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "i hope when obama finally steps to the plate GJ, his abilities match his rhetoric."

Sadly, I think people are going to be disappointed on one front or another any way you slice it. I have no doubt his abilities match his rhetoric, but the problems bush and co. left for him to fix are just too massive. Some people are going to be happy with certain tough decisions he makes, while others will feel betrayed, etc. In the long run, though, it'll all work out, and that's the most important thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems like you guys are already making excuses for the guy. continuing to bring up bush or mccain or palin is a telltale sign of a lack of confidence the left has in their man. obama the real deal or is he a house of cards. time will tell. come inaguaration day, he and the demodonks become100% accountable for which direction the country moves. i hope you are right, but their is no real past performance to serve as an indicator of the future. the only thing that can be predicted is the left's unhealthy hatred for george bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tragically, one of the worst challenges President Obama will face is blind hatred by a minority of disgruntled right-wingers who have already decided they hate President Obama even before he takes office. When bush was "elected" in 2000, we Democrats were at least American enough to give him a chance (before he proved his incompetence); the NeoCons don't even have the patriotism to wait until the rightfully elected President of the United States, Barack Obama, to take office. They'll just lurk on sites like JT and spin any problem President Obama faces into some twisted "justification" for their dislike of him.

Wow, I'm glad those morons are in the minority!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "seems like you guys are already making excuses for the guy. continuing to bring up bush or mccain or palin is a telltale sign of a lack of confidence the left has in their man."

Not at all: ever heard of compare and contrast? You guys STILL bring up Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter! Are you saying that's because you utterly lack confidence? I mean, GWB is still the president, and the messes he created still exist, so how do those facts somehow mean a lack of confidence in Obama?

"the only thing that can be predicted is the left's unhealthy hatred for george bush."

And rightfully so; GWB proved himself an utter failure, and that is fact, and so he is rightly hated. The future has yet to be written, and so cannot be correctly predicted. You're not exactly a private-eye for realizing these truths.

USAFdude: "Tragically, one of the worst challenges President Obama will face is blind hatred by a minority of disgruntled right-wingers who have already decided they hate President Obama even before he takes office."

So very true. It's sad how many anti-Americans there are even on this site. As Helter_Skelter once pointed out, 'if you do not side with the president you are friends with AQ'. I would say that's automatically true with the Anti-Obama lot on here, but Helter seemed pretty adamant about how unpatriotic you are if you don't support your president. Anyway, yeah, you can just feel these pathetic few on here ready to blame all of bush's monstrous creations on Obama. Next they'll be saying he started the war in Iraq, that it's his fault American troops are dying, and inevitably it'll be his fault the war was lost, when it was lost to begin with. It'll be a breath of relief, in fact, that they don't actually have to blame things on their hero, bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

usafdude get used to defending a wet behind the ears president. these next four years are going to be so fun after all the easiest thing in the world to do is criticize as demonstrated by all you guys on the left these last eight years. no hatred here, just loyal opposition. its best you develop some thicker skin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama will not cope with demanding challenges, he has lack of experience and talent. USAFdude- The Obama military spending cuts may see you flipping burgers in Mcd's very soon, feel sorry for you, but you get what you vote for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hehehe, talking out both sides of your mouth again smith. Ronald Reagan took over an economy even more decimated then the one we are currently in and fixed it. I remember specifically that he righted the ship not by blaming Carter but by lowering taxes and reforming the government. Its the lukewarm presidencies of both Bushes and Clinton and the do nothing congresses that has put the future of this country at great risk. Each administration and each session of congress get equal blame in my opinion. partisan bickering serves no real purpose and only destroys the fabric of democracy. time to grow up dude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He's gotta lot of challenges, no question about it. Afghanistan, banks, autos, to name a few. But he's going to get a honeymoon simply because most Americans are only to happy to see GWB go:

[I]t's a particularly amusing sign of how far the political climate has shifted that in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 33 percent of respondents admit to having voted for the guy twice, while 52 percent said they'd never voted for him at all. If that were actually true, of course, Bush would never have had the chance to run the country so firmly into the ground that people are now pretending they never liked him.

Just 18 percent of people surveyed said they were going to miss Bush; 79 percent said they wouldn't miss him. And Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who worked on the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff (who polled for John McCain during the campaign), told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that even a majority of GOP voters won't miss their one-time champion when he leaves office.

"He's much more likely to be seen as a Herbert Hoover that Democrats will continue to run against again and again," Hart said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here we go again. The "In-the-tank-for-Obama" media is trying to lower expectations for this miracle agent of change so the public will give him a pass when nothing "changes" with his presidency - except for the worse.

Funny, I seem to remember Bush II coming into office just after the tech-bubble burst and the stock market cratered - and none of the media saw fit to warn the public what a raw economic hand Bush was dealt when he took over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny, I seem to remember Bush II coming into office just after the tech-bubble burst and the stock market cratered - and none of the media saw fit to warn the public what a raw economic hand Bush was dealt when he took over.

Ah, but it enabled him to promote a very large series of tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy. In the beginning they may have had that effect. But over time they became a drag on growth since the cuts were not offset by a commensurate scaling back of federal spending. Quite the contrary in fact, spending ballooned. This has dealt Obama a much worse hand than the one bequeathed to GWB.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't wait until January 20. Not only will Bush be gone, but the partisan radicals who cannot talk about anything other than Bush will lose their platform.

In the meantime, I propose a new boxing circuit for those radicals who just can't let go of Bush. We can have the pro-Bush and anti-Bush radicals fill fight cards all over the world. While people are moving forward and trying to tackle the problems the world is facing today, we can have people like smith and sarge put on boxing gloves and punch each other in the face while the crowd chants "Bush! Bush! Bush!" We can turn their freakish radical politics into a side show for our amusement!

Enjoy your last 5 weeks, guys. Soon you're going to be irrelevant to the conversation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bebert

I was going to make the same point, you just did.

My first thought was "could AP set the bar any lower for him?".

They even went so far as to list all the excuses he could use if he turns out to be a bad President.

Heck, all he has to do is create one job and the MSM will scream what a success he is. Far cry from the media on holding him accountable for all the goodies and "change" he promised when he was running isn't it.

If he does turn out to be a bad President you can put it firmly in the MSM's lap as they sure didn't vet the guy.

relatively young and inexperienced,

I sure never saw that from the MSM in any article when HE WAS RUNNING, anyone here ever see that then?

Now we see it as because the MSM wants to make sure he gets a pass now that he is elected and when he can't deliver.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its clear that the Bush critics now find themselves in the position of having to defend the policies and shortcomings of a very wet behind the ears president and a very corrupt democratic party. They've spent the last 8 years doing nothing but partisan sniping. Now when it comes time to stand up for something, they can't and continue to rely on blaming George Bush as a way of insulating themselves of certain failure from the bumbling democrats. I wish the new president the best of luck and hope he finds a way of governing honestly, openly and from the center. I for one am expecting he honors his campaign promises of lowering taxes of the middle class and that he will fix the US economy. If he doesn't, well lets just say, I will enjoy my freedom of speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We'll have to wait and see how Obama is judged when he takes office. Right now we're just speculating.

I didn't really see the article as lowering the bar. This is one of the biggest challenges the US is facing in the modern era and I think it's fair to point that out. In reality he's going to be facing a lot of people who are losing their jobs so even if he is successful in some ways he will probably be judged harshly by those who won't be able to see past their current situation, right or wrong. He's also going to have to deal with the radical Right who will most likely follow the radical Left's playbook over the last 8 years and just resist and criticize anything he does, even when they agree with him.

Whatever expectations or bar raising/lowering that's done today will be quickly forgotten once he gets into office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

relatively young and inexperienced

how can they say that about Obama!? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

And yet he was elected president. Go figure.

I think this comment would have more impact if the Republicans had offered to run a candidate with administrative experience. They didn't and I'm still trying to figure that.

I think that the magnitude and the complexities of the problems we face probably do not require administrative skills so much as they require visionary skills.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To SezWho2:

"I think this comment would have more impact if the Republicans had offered to run a candidate with administrative experience. They didn't and I'm still trying to figure that."

I did get quality info on that - Sen. McCain was better suited to the geopolitical goals set in motion by the Bush Administration. Target: Indian Ocean.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

I don't think this is exactly the "radical Left's playbook".

First and foremost, I think terms like "radical Left" or "radical Right" are neither helpful or useful in America politics. I'm willing to grant that there is a "radical Left" and a "radical Right" but I would wager that both of these groups would not view with favor any president elected in recent history. These term are divisive.

Secondly, the playbook does not belong to the "radical Left" or even to those who "lean left" or even to Democrats. Frankly, I don't know who the playbook does belong to, but I'd also be willing to wager that you could find Cicero, Brutus and some others of the cream of Rome using the same book. In my view of recent history, Republicans have had constant antagonism toward Democrats ever since Nixon was hounded from office and while I'm loath to say "they started it", it seems to me that they have been using this book ever since.

I agree with you that at this point everything is speculation and that it's fair to point out that Obama is initially confronted with considerably greater challenges than, say, Eisenhower was--or even than Clinton or Bush were. I agree that this does not amount to lowering the bar of expectations.

It would be naive to think that Obama is going to solve our problems. I don't think we are going to solve our problems until we place greater emphasis on personal saving, on service to country and community, on national modesty and until we eschew a culture of acquisition, indulgence and entertainment. Yet while it would be naive to expect Obama to be able to solve the problems we face, I think there are no solid grounds for believing that any other person could move us forward any better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Elect Obama is not even President Elect yet (Dec 15), and somehow he has destroyed his country. -Does this mean I won't be getting my free George Foreman grill? -But I really wanted the George Forman fryer or the Rotisserie!

Be patient young folks. Economies take a long time to heal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetwork,

I don't understand how your comment relates to McCain's "leadership experience at running anything". What did McCain run?

I can see that it is you opinion that he would be better suited to pursue Bush's goals. And I agree that McCain might be better suited to pursue Bush's goals. What isn't clear is (1) whether you think those are worthy goals and if so why and (2) what leadership experience McCain has that would make qualified to run anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey,

Why bother to post incorrect or unsupported statements?

President-elect Obama is definitely the President-elect unless and until the Electoral College fails to vote as anticipated or the Congress fails to recognize that vote in January.

I'm not sure how you have in mind that he has destroyed the country, but if you could at least specify we could consider your wisdom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The article is missing the point. From what the Potus elect says and what we know about his ideology, he sees the economic crisis not as a problem, but as an opportunity. There is no limit to the new spending that will be approved in rapic succession under his government, all with borrowed or newly printed money. Before that show is over, the US will have outfranced France and will settled with huge new entitlement programs bureaucracies that will make the cradle-to-grave government support states of Northern Europe look capitalistic. Wait and see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be naive to think that Obama is going to solve our problems. I don't think we are going to solve our problems until we place greater emphasis on personal saving, on service to country and community, on national modesty and until we eschew a culture of acquisition, indulgence and entertainment. Yet while it would be naive to expect Obama to be able to solve the problems we face, I think there are no solid grounds for believing that any other person could move us forward any better.

I think his current three-quarters approval rating reflects his ability to present issues through engagement rather than ideology. By contrast we're told we won the war in Iraq yet an unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

Nonetheless, it will have to be paid off by future generations. We're getting a nasty comeuppance for living beyond our means. It's going to be painful and I think people realize there are no easy fixes. This is different from the 1970s when an external shock, namely OPEC's decision (and new-found ability) to dramatically increase the price of oil, was at the heart of our economic ills.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: I'm not the one who needs to grow up here, friend. I came on and made a valid point -- that Obama has a LOT to deal with after the current president walks out the door; and that is what this thread is about, after all. You then attempted to chide me by saying that constantly bringing up bush is akin to making excuses for Obama. Sorry, my friend, but bringing up bush is unavoidable when talking about the article at hand, and the troubles that Obama is going to face.

Making excuses for the current president by saying, as one poster did the other day, "Bush is finished, stop talking about the past and get with the present". That poster seemed to forget that bush is still in office (can't blame him), and was already trying to blame the economy on Obama. You are somewhat like that, by saying referring to the current president is some sort of defense for the way things are (while he is still in office).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As the NYT's observed: Mr. Bush said he will “leave the presidency with my head held high.” And, presumably, with his eyes closed to all the disasters he is dumping on the American people and his successor.

But I don't think many will want to dwell on all that went wrong given the gravity of the problems we face. Simply put, the future demands our attention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama is offering no change or solutions.

The solutions are available and the same for the rest of the world and the many world problems we created with the "new deals" of the past. Our successes have caused pollution, global warming, energy crisis, food crisis, war, reoccurring financial crises, immigration, crime, social security insufficiencies and high health care and education requirements and costs, poverty and inequality.

The solution is in understanding the goal of life is not employment and its bondage and stress. The goal in life is a retirement lifestyle where our time is our own to create a garden paradise with trees, plants and animals that provide fresh food in our community. This solves all the world problems at the same time, fairly, sustainably, inexpensively and quickly. Barack Obama has refused this solution or is unable to consider how it can come together. All we have to do is lift it up as a good lifestyle; some will do it, some will not, but there will still be great benefit for all. The way is prepared for a smooth transition; we only need to want it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vor -

usafdude get used to defending a wet behind the ears president. these next four years are going to be so fun after all the easiest thing in the world to do is criticize as demonstrated by all you guys on the left these last eight years. no hatred here, just loyal opposition. its best you develop some thicker skin.

LOL! What you call "a wet behind the ears president" I call a much better CnC than what we have now. Of course I'll support him and of course I'll continue coming to JT and utterly defeating your vitriol, which you thinly veil as "loyal" opposition. Loyal to the enemies of America maybe, but not loyal to America.

Thicker skin? Har! I say bring it on (gee, where have I heard that before?)! xD

Newfront-

The Obama military spending cuts may see you flipping burgers in Mcd's very soon

Another limp-dicked attempt at fearmongering by the NeoCons! OK, I've had right-wingers throw this one at me a few times before, so lemme ask you, newfront: What makes you think, in the highly unlikely event of my losing my military job, that the only recourse I'd have is "flipping burgers at McD's" or welfare? Hell, if bush can blow off his military obligations and become president, imagine what a guy like me could do with 14 years of faithful service! Maybe I'll run for President if 2012! But if not, I'll still have plenty of options; after President Obama fixes bush's horribly screwed up economy, we'll all be better off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They've spent the last 8 years doing nothing but partisan sniping. Now when it comes time to stand up for something, they can't and continue to rely on blaming George Bush as a way of insulating themselves of certain failure from the bumbling democrats.

It's pretty cold here in Kentucky; how's the weather in fantasy land?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR at 02:06 PM JST - 14th December - usafdude get used to defending a wet behind the ears president.

Please, this is exactly the mentality that we have seen from the right-wingers protecting the president who was such a uniter.

We now have a president elect who has a challenge who is getting the correct people behind him and with him to work this problem. Barack has shown already that he's pulling togetjer the best minds, whether they be left or right. Not just one token selection.

Barack Obama has problems and then the GOP senators are attempting to give him even more problems.

A majority of the southern GOP senators are trying to break the UAW and crush their attempts to stay alive. They are in the same swift move attempting to push their foreign automakers in their states into greater markets by stoking the death uf the BIG 3.

Barack Obama can do it and do it right. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 I'm originally from a little town east of Lexington. Where are you from? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you guys crack me up. you criticize others for the exact same thing you yourselves are doing. Bush did some good and he did some bad. Obama will do some good and will do some bad. What seperates us rational thinkers from you partisan hacks is the ability to give credit where credit is due and to analyze issues from a neutral corner.

Its rare on the pages of JT to actually enter into rational discussion with people willing to listen to various points of view free of personal attacks. JT is what it is, a place for anonymous hacks to mouth off whatever they want without accountability. Makes me wonder how forthright most of you are in your daily lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - What things did george bush do good?

Am I to assume that you haven't been critical of Barack Obama and his run up to his presidency?

We have a track record for george bush. We have no track record for Barack Obama, yet. However, Barack Obama will have to be a total loser from day two to show less of a successful presidency.

When george bush came into office he had a budget and pocketbook that was sound and secure. The budget and pocketbook that Barack Obama is inheriting is in shambles.

This is nothing that can't be done. You just have to put the nation over self. Something george bush never did come to terms with. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vor -

JT is what it is, a place for anonymous hacks to mouth off whatever they want without accountability.

Nobody's making you post here. If you decide you want to continue posting here, try not to open yourself up to "personal attacks" by posting trash like usafdude get used to defending a wet behind the ears president.

Follow your own advice: Get some thicker skin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daydream, at least you admit that Obama has no track record and your expectations appear quite low. Thats a good start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vor,

You said the republicans are the victims of partisan sniping. That's pretty funny.

As far as partisan sniping goes, the republican party's mantra for the last 16 years has been, "it's Bill Clinton's fault." If you can't recognize that, well...excuse me when I point and laugh.

And because that, along with tax cuts for the rich and ill-planned military action, has been their solution to about ever situation, they were collectively shown the door last month.

The Democrats biggest fault over the last 8 years was their inability to stand up to republican idiocy, and it turns out to be beneficial for them politically in the end. By virtue of their inability to stop the republicans from darn near destroying the country, they ended up giving republicans enough rope to hang their whole party.

The Democrats and the country as a whole gave the republican led congress and bush their full support after the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and the GOP and bush blew it at every single opportunity.

You may disagree, but...the U.S. voters clearly agree with me on this. Hence the overwhelming purge of republicans from office that we saw last month at every level; congressional, gubernatorial and presidential.

As for giving credit where credit is due, I've said on many occasions that bush did a good job of dealing with the AIDS issue in Africa. It's just that his screw-ups outnumber his achievements at about a 100 to 1 ratio and they are normally far more catastrophic in nature. Combine that with his overwhelming ability to avoid accountability for any of it and you have the perfect recipe for political backlash, which is what we are seeing.

You may not like it, but...tough. It's called reality. Deal with it.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - I really didn't think you could come up with a good thing that george bush has done and couldn't.

But just because Barack Obama hasn't led doesn't mean he can't. It doesn't mean that he'll fail in his presidency as george bush has.

Barack Obama can't do any worse. Ain't no way. Barack's only direction that he can possibly go is up. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka, what fascinates me about you leftwing zealots is that you have convinced yourselves that you are right and everybody else is wrong. The democrats are good and the republicans are evil. That way of thinking is no different than right wing zealots who claim they are right and everybody else is wrong and the republicans are good and the democrats are evil. Can't you see that?

We live in the disinformation age. Both political parties lie, the press is biased and the blogosphere is one huge cesspool of close mindedness. It would be a miracle if the pages of JT ever produced anykind of reasonable dialogue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daydream, i challenge you to decide on your own what good George Bush has done in the last 8 years as an exercise in removing your political blinders . I can name off quite a few but then we'd end up in a debate about Bush's legacy and not what Obama is going to do when he becomes President of the United States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Electoral College votes Dec 15 -on that day Barrack Obama will be elected as the new to-be President of the United States (President Elect). = He is selected by the Electoral College not by the voters.

I didn't make up the system. I didn't make up "Office of the President Elect" either -that's a new one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR name those quite a few. Your refusal to name any has shown the lack of any. Playing your i challenge you to decide on your own only proves it. Thank you.

I'll be reading your post with interest in the future, especially after Barack takes office. We'll see if you stay so even unbiased or you show your true colors.

What we have in the last 16 years is one leader who put us back on the track to financial stability and a leader who gave it all to the top 1% of the population or wasted it on his war of choice.

Now Barack has to take the balance book of America's financial collapse, that has been created by his predicessor, and bring America back from the brink of bankruptsy. Barack will be the "can do guy." < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey,

You didn't make up the system. But you did make up the definition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR said:

Ronald Reagan took over an economy even more decimated then the one we are currently in and fixed it.

No. 1 - If you think the economy of the present day is less decimated then the one Reagan took over you clearly do not understand economics enough for your comments to be considered credible. Anyone who bases the health of our economy for comparison purposes on the level of unemployment and inflation of 1981 in respect to 2009 is ignoring the record failure (since 1929) of financial institutions, collapse of manufacturing, a meltdown of credit liquidity needed by most major corporations and most important the dissolution of value in the real estate markets brought on by the sub-prime loan debacle.

No. 2 - If you care to do the most minor amount of research you would find that Paul Volcker was the person who limited the growth of the money supply which reduced inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981 and was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. Paul Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter not Ronald Reagan.

As far as a track record goes, I have said many times that Obama has more experience than Lincoln did his first term as president.

Obama is not a savior but we will be in better shape economically within 3 years after coming the closest to a train wreck of our financial institutions since the great depression. After the initial stages of the depression it took decades to emerge from the devastation an unregulated financial industry left in ruins. So people on this thread can display their dishonesty or ignorance of the economic status of the country all they want. The truth is that if Obama gets the economy going on the right path in his first term he will have accomplished a feat economically. History will so note that fact just as history will determine the George Bush and not the Democrats was responsible for our economic woes.

Terrorism is a whole different story. George Bush created the conditions that increased the number of the worst possible terrorists; due to their allegiance to al'Quada. It is inevitable that there will be a slow trickle of highly trained al'Quada operatives into America. The simpletons will claim that any act of terrorism that occurs is due to a recent event (at the time) rather than a huge increase in the number of specifically al'Quada operatives. It will be a long time until highly analytical intelligence will prove that the seeds were sown during George W. Bush's administration; just like the seeds were sown in Bush 41 for the initial uprising of Osama bin Laden. The difference is that Bush 41 was involved in an honorable act comparatively speaking. However George W. acted irresponsibly even if the Iraqi war had been justified; which it was not. Major progress can be made towards terrorism in the future if we increase the level of success in Afghanistan. This will be extremely difficult because we cannot procure resources quickly.

So the answer will be a huge raise in the deficit to assure our economic survival. The Democrats know how to be fiscally responsible but we are now backed in a corner and we sure as hell are not going to let critical interests, whether they be economic or security interests, fail due to the looming cost of the deficit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey, nice post. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good donkey, you are a good donkey. i couldn't paraphase history according to the dailykos any better. thanks for sharing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought goodDonkey put it pretty good.

But VOR, if goodDonkey hasn't presented history concerning Ronald Reagan took over an economy even more decimated then the one we are currently in and fixed it. I'd love to see your take on it. I lived through it and remember it pretty good. Or will you avoid it like you avoid mentioning the good things that george bush did. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR said:

i couldn't paraphase history according to the dailykos any better. thanks for sharing.

I don't read the "dailykos" so I wouldn't know. But I do take note that you did not address my reference to your inaccuracies. But then again what else is new when you falsely attribute and are unaware of the state of our current economy.

Oh, and on the "good donkey" comment, so much for your words earlier of partisanship. Don't worry we understand. Your laughable words that the economy Reagan inherited was worse that the current economy explain all we need to know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry guys, you guys believe what you want to believe. debating anything with you guys here I fear would just be a colossal waste of time. you keep wanting to go back in history when the issues at hand are in front of us. good luck to you in the real world where facts are facts and the decisions you derive from those set of facts determines your success or failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vor - where to begin?!

sorry guys, you guys believe what you want to believe. Like the truth.

debating anything with you guys here I fear would just be a colossal waste of time.

Then debate, instead of trolling.

you keep wanting to go back in history when the issues at hand are in front of us.

Like the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whom you've already written off the page.

good luck to you in the real world where facts are facts and the decisions you derive from those set of facts determines your success or failure.

Yep. We successfully elected Barack Hussein Obama President of the United States based on the facts presented during the campaign. We look forward to his success as President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude:

" We successfully elected Barack Obama President of the United States based on the facts presented during the campaign. "

Facts? ROTFL

Take a look here: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vor,

Has it ever occurred to you that your inability to find "reasonable dialog" here at JT could be self-inflicted?

When you present revisionist history as fact and demand that everyone see it your way, you don't do yourself any favors.

But I do like your portrayal of being fair and balanced while relying on neo-conservative talking points:

Blame Daily Kos. Blame the main-stream media.

(Pssst....you forgot to blame Bill Clinton)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - "www.howobamagotelected.com"? ROTFL! Check out the results of the election, my friend; glad to be of help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well don't worry according to the article.

Indeed, Obama exudes confidence.

I feel so much better now, thanks A.P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR said:

you keep wanting to go back in history when the issues at hand are in front of us. good luck to you in the real world where facts are facts and the decisions you derive from those set of facts determines your success or failure.

How typical. I commented because he said "Ronald Reagan took over an economy...[yadda, yadda, yadda]" and then attempting to take the high ground he says, "...you keep wanting to go back in history...[.]" What a feeble attempt at trying to rewrite your own history that is clearly contradictory between the two posts.

VOR at 02:17 PM JST - 14th December

hehehe, talking out both sides of your mouth again smith. Ronald Reagan took over an economy even more decimated then the one we are currently in and fixed it

VOR at 07:19 AM JST - 15th December

...you keep wanting to go back in history when the issues at hand are in front of us

I just had to include the part where he said "talking out both sides [of] your mouth again..." since it also shows his propensity to do what he accuses others of doing.

Just to be clear on my part, any debate must include the past to be rational. I am not the one complaining about using the past as a reference. The truth is you will see every poster refer to history at some point; that is a sign of intelligence. Vor got caught distorting the facts and then hilariously tries to once again take the high ground. He does so by saying "good luck to you in the real world where facts are facts and the decisions you derive from those set of facts determines your success or failure." Excellent advice. Please heed it! I do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems from the posts here that many Obama supporters were unaware he was relatively young and inexperienced. Apparently their handholders in the MSM didn't tell them, and they weren't on the ball enough to notice for themselves. Well I am a bit surprised by all that. I thought the "Americans vote the way they do because they are stupid" argument was a sign of out-of-touch with the common man, left-wing, intellectual elitism, and/or general Euro-wussiness. Now I see Republicans are making the same argument. Did something change????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did something change????

Yes.....I never saw an article about any other President-Elect in my lifetime praised with the words

From the other perspective, he could be on a glide path to Mount Rushmore

Before he has even stepped foot in the oval office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

heady: "extremely exciting as if by alcohol or a narcotic"

The headline writers need to use their heads and not their headies. A basic grasp of English would be nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind hit it on the head. The dude hasn't done anything significant yet (well, not for at least 5 years anyway). Give him a chance. If he's as bad as we think, it will be obvious fairly soon. If he's as good as we hope, that should also be fairly obvious relatively soon.

USAF, don't worry about job security. As I'm sure anyone with a bit of seniority can tell you, your quite secure in your job. Present day liberals are getting ready to turn us back into the world's largest public works department... again. They learned their lesson from the peanut farmer and they now realize that gutting the military won't work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hope next 4 years will be better with Obama. Criticising Obama is better and will be better read than criticising GWB.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not sure that the president really has a lot of control over the economy so I don't expect Obama to be able to fix it. He can do the public works job projects to keep people from going under but what else is there.

He's certainly got a lot on his plate but so far the people he is putting into a lot of the positions seem to have they're heads screwed on straight. Time will tell.

I just hope that the economic crisis isn't used as an excuse to limit civil liberties the way GWB used the 9/11 crisis to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1:

I just hope that the economic crisis isn't used as an excuse to limit civil liberties the way GWB used the 9/11 crisis to do so.

I was thinking policies like that could be for protection. What was I thinking? You have my word that I will automatically criticize Obama if he does anything pre-emptive against terrorism or any other disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just out of curiosity, Ca1.... exactly which civil liberties of YOURS have been limited since 9/11?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's time for Obama to stop saying hope and change and tell the American what to hope in from his policies and just what he is going to change. Thus far all we have is an adjective and a verb to characterize his ideas, but nothing to attatch either to. Empty words.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, we got fooled again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for me, I will wait and see what happens. I do hope things get better however he is going to have to carefully watch his every move. I am concerned more about his and his family's personal safety more than anything else. I did not vote for him but I do respect the office that he will hold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites