Hope and change

"Sell'in hope's like sell'in soap, son. I'll tell you why.

You can't make either one without a little bit of lye."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vkodcKUkd2Rg

Hilarious!

That said, could Obama have been elected had he been truthful with the American people?

Originally posted by whodey
"Sell'in hope's like sell'in soap, son. I'll tell you why.

You can't make either one without a little bit of lye."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vkodcKUkd2Rg

Hilarious!

That said, could Obama have been elected had he been truthful with the American people?

No, unfortunately.

Most likely, Obama gave us uplifting rhetoric while hoping to have a "Morning in America" first term that never arrived. Reagan got lucky (Paul Volcker fixed the stagflation crisis), but Obama was unlucky // failed to pass enough stimulus spending to fix the problem decisively, and instead made it worse with spending cuts.

Originally posted by karnachz
No, unfortunately.

Most likely, Obama gave us uplifting rhetoric while hoping to have a "Morning in America" first term that never arrived. Reagan got lucky (Paul Volcker fixed the stagflation crisis), but Obama was unlucky // failed to pass enough stimulus spending to fix the problem decisively, and instead made it worse with spending cuts.

Obama, being rather ignorant of basic economics, made his biggest blunder in the first two years of his presidency, when he had the political capital and a strong majority in Congress to push through a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Obama, being rather ignorant of basic economics, made his biggest blunder in the first two years of his presidency, when he had the political capital and a strong majority in Congress to push through a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

That would've been good for the national debt, and not especially harmed the economic recovery, but neither would it have helped it. What Obama -really- needed to push was jobs and stimulus spending. He needed to push for more after the first stimulus package passed, and to push again after May 2010 when consumers stalled in fear over seeing Europe's problems, thus hampering the recovery. For the first stimulus package, he should have passed the tax cuts first with bipartisan support (Republicans couldn't get away with blocking tax cuts for the middle class), and then pushed for a pure stimulus spending package. That way, Republicans couldn't spread BS propaganda that made the mixed stimulus package look like $800 billion of spending, rather than what it was -- something like $300 billion of spending and the rest tax cuts.

Healthcare wasn't worth doing, unless you could get Medicare for all. Reducing the Medicare age to 55 or 60 was the kind of thing he could have advocated, if not lower, or incrementally lowering it over time. If Republicans block that, simply say that it's up to Republicans to propose a solution, and rightfully put the blame on them for the nation's healthcare problems until they co-operate.

Essentially, Obama made the wrong choice to pursue healthcare, rather than sorting out jobs, infrastructure and stimulus spending first.

Originally posted by karnachz
That would've been good for the national debt, and not especially harmed the economic recovery, but neither would it have helped it. What Obama -really- needed to push was jobs and stimulus spending. He needed to push for more after the first stimulus package passed, and to push again after May 2010 when consumers stalled in fear over seeing Europe's proble ...[text shortened]... to pursue healthcare, rather than sorting out jobs, infrastructure and stimulus spending first.

I don't see why Obama would have been too "focused" on health care - it's not like he personally writes the laws. Not repealing the Bush tax cuts (and introducing additional heavy tax hikes for the very wealthy) was a deliberate and foolish decision. With an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (which he certainly could do) and a 75% reduction in the military budget (which obviously never would have passed Congress, but still) there would have been plenty of room to close the deficit and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure and education.

Originally posted by karnachz
No, unfortunately.

Most likely, Obama gave us uplifting rhetoric while hoping to have a "Morning in America" first term that never arrived. Reagan got lucky (Paul Volcker fixed the stagflation crisis), but Obama was unlucky // failed to pass enough stimulus spending to fix the problem decisively, and instead made it worse with spending cuts.

So you would say that Obama had to lie about Obamacare in order to get elected?

Since you love the legislation would you then say that lying is not only acceptable, but compulsory in order to rule and reign effectively over the peasant masses?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see why Obama would have been too "focused" on health care - it's not like he personally writes the laws. Not repealing the Bush tax cuts (and introducing additional heavy tax hikes for the very wealthy) was a deliberate and foolish decision. With an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (which he certainly could do) and a 75% reduction in the m ...[text shortened]... nty of room to close the deficit and invest in America's crumbling infrastructure and education.

You don't see why? The DNC has been trying to push through such legislation since the days of FDR. After the horrendous Bush administration they had a majority to do anything they wanted.

So what you have here in Obamacare is a century old goal of progressives.

The question becomes, what is the next major goal? I'm thinking that the GOP will have to place another stooge Republican in power to once again get another DNC majority to do whatever the hell they want, but they better lie to get it done like they did Obamacare. I'm guessing it will be cap and trade of a complete government takeover of health care. They have essentially taken over health care with the addition of regulating insurance industries to the verge of owning them outright.

Originally posted by whodey
You don't see why? The DNC has been trying to push through such legislation since the days of FDR. After the horrendous Bush administration they had a majority to do anything they wanted.

So what you have here in Obamacare is a century old goal of progressives.

The question becomes, what is the next major goal? I'm thinking that the GOP will have to ...[text shortened]... care with the addition of regulating insurance industries to the verge of owning them outright.

Republican presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower also wanted universal healthcare.

Originally posted by karnachz
Republican presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower also wanted universal healthcare.

Yep, it's been the plan all along of the GOP.

Wouldn't it suck to have to pretend you were against it?