I don’t mean to say, “I told you so.” But I told you so.
In my latest book, “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper During Obamageddon” I listed hundreds of statistics proving that the U.S. economy was headed for total collapse. But that was all written months ago. Unfortunately, the worst was yet to come
Read more: Why we can kiss the US economy goodbye | Fox News
I'm sure that there can be any number of people who think that their plan is the 'ultimate survival guide' to any major issue.Your thoughts?
I'm sure that there can be any number of people who think that their plan is the 'ultimate survival guide' to any major issue.
Reality is unless you're going to actually attempt to do something to correct the situation, then survival is about preparing for the basic necessities of life and realizing that YOU are going to be the only thing you should depend on. Which is the way it should have been even without some supposed crisis for someone to write a book about.
Call it Cliff Notes for life... :wink:
Your thoughts?
Survival guides aside, how about the figures?
Maybe we should have taken Obama's word as fact...Fundamentally Change America.
He NEVER said it would be for the better.
I would say, you are probably right that Obama has been less than a blessing for the economy. He has also done the US little good on the international front. But what could one expect from a man of that little experience. But we took a chance in him.
Would someone else have been better? I mean the hand he was dealt, was not very good. US finances were not in good shape and there was a financial crises going on. Obamacare was probably a major blooper that has made things worse in the short term and nobody can judge for the long term.
So what now?
Yup, until we decide to get serious about dealing with the income disparity issue in the US, we are doomed to 2% economic growth jobs just barely keeping up with population growth, and stagnant wages for the bottom 90%. Thats what the article was really about (every single economic indicator that it pointed to was a direct result of growing income disparity).
Unfortunately, in our current political climate, no one is willing to tackle the issue of income disparity, and virtually every time that O' mentions anything that would reduce disparity, he is blown off, as much by his own party as the republican party. I expect that late this fall or early winter, this climate may start to change.
Yup, until we decide to get serious about dealing with the income disparity issue in the US, we are doomed to 2% economic growth jobs just barely keeping up with population growth, and stagnant wages for the bottom 90%. Thats what the article was really about (every single economic indicator that it pointed to was a direct result of growing income disparity).
Unfortunately, in our current political climate, no one is willing to tackle the issue of income disparity, and virtually every time that O' mentions anything that would reduce disparity, he is blown off, as much by his own party as the republican party. I expect that late this fall or early winter, this climate may start to change.
I don't believe the government should involve itself in anything to do with income, disparity or not. If they can mandate who makes how much, then the statement 'you can't make everybody rich, so make everybody poor' may be more truth then we, as Americans, want to imagine.
We took a chance on him because we were collectively feeling, rather than thinking. That was our big mistake. In the wake of a huge financial crisis, we were looking for someone to save us, and not someone who would step out of the way, and let us save ourselves. The biggest problem I have with Obama is his desire to control and micromanage, where the best strategy would be to back off and let the creators and innovators of our society do their thing. A leader who has a need for control stifles creativity, and hinders growth. It's like a parent who wants to control the life of their child. It makes the child inhibited and stunts his ability to flourish.
If you believe that, then don't blame policy makers when the economy doesn't fix itself. The most needed thing will not be done because so many deem it to be against some misguided principle. And then they will blame the president, whoever that is at the moment.
Obama largely did step out of the way.
No elected politician was going to take the change that our economy totally collapsed, without making some sort of an attempt to save it, no matter how pathetic or wrong that attempt might be. Obama did pretty much the exact same thing that any politician from any party (including libertarians) would have done. While it didn't really totally have the desired results, it did prevent a total economic free fall.
The Great Bush Recession was pretty much at it's worse point during the span of time which started at the peak of campaign season and ended shortly after the transition between presidents. I really don't know what anyone would have expected, we had two guys in a heated campaign, an election, then a dead duck president, then a brand new POTUS with no real experience. Quite frankly, as deep at the economic doodoo was, it's amazing that the recession ended just three months or so after the new POTUS took office.
The outcome was probably the best outcome that was realistically possible under the circumstances.
....The biggest problem I have with Obama is his desire to control and micromanage, ....
Your thoughts?
Trying to pin all of this on Obama is quite ridiculous.Your thoughts?
I don't believe the government should involve itself in anything to do with income, disparity or not. If they can mandate who makes how much, then the statement 'you can't make everybody rich, so make everybody poor' may be more truth then we, as Americans, want to imagine.
Ahhh yes, redistribution of wealth, that ALWAYS works.:lol:
I'm not a huge believer in government mandating anything either, but it's reality. Everything that our government does, or fails to do, have effects, some good and some bad, and something or other is "mandated". As long as we can agree that we should have government, and that some form of democracy is superior to most other forms of government. Assuming this, then we should agree that the purpose of government is to benefit the majorityof the population being governed (thats what democracy is about - the majority).
There are certain actions that the government can take, which probably wouldn't normally be considered outright mandates on income distribution, but which influence income distribution. One of my favorite ways of doing this would be to lower the bottom few tax brackets to zero percent. But thats one of many.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?