Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"It has nothing to do with incompetence "
That's your opinion. In my opinion, 4 years is a lot of time, and $5 trillion is a lot to flush down the toilet, if all you have to show is zero jobs created and lower wages. A huge majority of business owners said the passage of Obamacare would hurt them, but Obama did it anyway. That's a big part of the 'larger trend' yuo describe, and that effect lies right at his feet.
It may be argued that Obama is extremely competent in accomplishsing HIS goals, not yours. When you argue back and forth with Spence on what are "better" economic methods and solutions, you are playing in his sandbox (and, apparently, yours) in which the problem is merely competence within a system of government that allows bureaucrats to do what they do, rather than the original sand box that would not allow such shenanigans. When arguing about competence within the parameters of the status quo (the central government's right and responsibility to control and create the "economy"), you are accepting that status quo. And it is that status quo, that system, which allows the competence or incompetence, to be the argument of who will be "better" rather than whether the federal government even has that right and responsibility
Spence, there are states that are growing and adding jobs. They are overwhelmingly red states. Pure coincidence, I supose.
There will always be sectors that will do better or worse. That's the beauty of federalism--the States being the laboratories of social, political, and economic experiments. But only insofar as they are allowed to do so. The more centralized that government becomes, the less will be the diversity of those experiments, and the more static society, the "economy", and the relationship between the citizen and the government becomes. The overall "economy" if left to the control of a central government will be diverse and evolutionary in the most limited way--only at the hands of a unitary directorate, and only change course within those limited parameters when parties can convince the electorate that their director is more competent than the other party.
"Obama inherited a trillion + defecit "
(1) Inherited from whom? Obama and Biden were members of the US Senate, and they were in the party that controlled Congress from 2006-2010. In our country, the legislature controls the legislative agenda and the purse strings. So I'm not sure I give Obama a complete 'pass' on the mess he claims to have 'inherited'. He didn't walk in off the street. He was there. I'm not saying it's all his fault. But I'm saying he bears some responsibility for what happened.
(2) He promised to cut that deficit in half.
Yes, you're absolutely right (there are absolutes, Spence). Obama bears some responsibility for the inheritance he helped to create--as do all the other members of Congress, and other Presidents and judges. And, as well, We The People bear some of that responsiblity, not only for electing them, but allowing them to transform the Constitution into a system of government that makes us underlings instead of masters.
"there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt"
Wrong. McCain would not have passed Obamacare, and he wouldn't have implemented a stimulus that did nothing except delay public sector layoffs for one year.
McCain would have helped to maintain the present administrative system of government, perhaps with a smaller growth in deficits and national debt. But the system would have been maintained, perhaps advanced to another level, and would be there for future mischief by bigger spenders and controllers.
"you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight "
Agree 100%. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could have mis-managed the crisis worse than Obama has.
Again, depending on what Obama's goals are for fundamentally transforming this country and its system of government, he may be considered to have managed very well.
"the fact that things are getting better "
It's not a fact that things are better. $5 trillion added to our debt. That means that every living American is now $16,667 deeper in debt than when he took office. That works out to $67,000 for a family of 4, and the interest is now accumulating. What does that family of 4 have to show for that $67,000 IOU Obama gave to the Chinese on their behalf? Zero jobs created, and wages that are $4300 lower than they were 4 years ago. Higher healthcare costs. Astronomically higher fuel prices. How you can claim that it's a 'fact' that things are better, I simply cannot fathom.
See, that's the progressive sandbox in which you are playing. Arguing about how much rather than should they even be able.
We're not bleeding jobs like we were, that is a fact. But at what cost? And what kinds of jobs are being created - part time jobs with no healthcare. Whoop-dee-doo.
When the blood has drained so much, there is not as much left to be drained. It would have been mathematically impossible to maintain the higher number of jobs lost, but the rate at which they are presently lost in comparison to how much "blood" is left, may be as high or higher. Again, is it the Federal Government's responsibility to create jobs?
"We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy"
You think that's a fair assessment of what McCain would have done, or what Romney is proposing/
That's you in a nutshell, right there, that post. You bend over backwards to heap praise on Obama, and yuo dismiss those who disagree with him as proposing to 'sprinkle magic dust'. That's very dishinest, and it's what we have all come to expect from you. I;m happy to honestly debate the merits of what Obama has actually said and done. You cannot bring yourself to do that with my side, because you know you can't reject these ideas on their merits, so all you can do is dishonestly dismiss them.
I cannot fathom that you work in finance, I can only pray that your DNA isn't on anything that will ever impact my family.
|