Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Coin, now this is rational thought, and there are a lot of people that agree with you. I don't, because I see the Gov't doing this and producing a multitude of cheap, small, fuel efficient cars sitting in dealership parking lots for years on end and taxpayer money going to waste. There's no guarantee it would happen, but it's a very real risk. As for Hollywood, don't judge the US by that standard. Most people around here that don't own SUVs look at SUV owners and simply ask one question: "Why? Why do you need something that big?"

Chandos, do you realize that the current USGS estimates put the 'undiscovered' oil reserves in the central US (can't remember the basin name now, but I'll look into it) is enough to supply the US for the next 50 years or so at current consumption rates (100%)? Mind you, this is an estimate of 'undiscovered' oil, which means all the geology looks right, and assuming there are no cracks for the oil to leak out of, the oil pockets should be there, but only two wells have been drilled so far. They're getting good results, but that's still far from a guarantee. And as for cost, do you realize how much of that cost is due to the fact that, for every foot of rock they're going to drill through, they have to cut through about two feet of red tape? Do you know what environmentalists do whenever an oil company tries to start drilling somewhere new, even if they have a legal lease and full permission and everything?

 

T2 - I'm glad that we are in agreement. Like I was saying, I did not think that it had much to do with the windfall profits tax that was repealed in 1988. As for the specific reasons for the state of the housing market, there is no real consenus among the experts. I've read different opinions about the causes. My own personal opinion is that it was the over-inflated price of real estate in certain areas of the country. There was too much speculation to be sure, and people were reckless in spending other people's money in investments that never should have been made.

Regarding my comment about "Bush owning the economy," let me ask you a larger question: At which point does a president take personal responsibility for his watch? When does he start owning his own legacy? Bush inherited a strong economy with a budget surplus. He cut taxes during wartime, which no president has ever done, believing that someone else would pay for the excesses of his administration. Gnarff commented that "someone had to pay the piper," and that is not just an empty platitude regarding Bush. Bush, cowardly, almost made it out without paying the piper - he fell short by 6 months. Eight years of incompetence and cronyism within the Bush government failed to watch over the market in a meangiful way. The result is what it is.

Was some of the "groundwork laid" for this in past administrations? Well, yes, and that's called hindsight, and anyone with half-a-wit can see 20/20 over events that have already happened. It's all in watching the events unfold and looking at what can happen when followed to their logical conclusions and taking action to actually prevent a disaster that makes one competent and accomplished. Bush supporters had to keep setting the bar lower and lower for this guy, and the results speak for themselves (these same supporters are now mostly Palinites, and for her, they have placed the bar on the floor). They continue to lower our standards for excellence with petty ideology and dime-store philosophies about "free markets" and the danger of "totalitarian unions," without attaching any standard for fairness and accountability - or even basic competency. But don't worry, help is on the way and it will be here in roughly 50 days. Let's just see where they are willling to set the bar for Obama. Somehow I have a feeling it won't be very low this time around....

NOG - Yes I know about the cost, because I speak with oil people here in Houston regularly. That cost is why they like getting oil from other sources. If you would like specific costs, I can get them for you.

 

Chandos, my only response to that is this, who do you think he should share that legacy with? Bush hardly had totalitarian control of the government. For many years the Republicans held sway in Congress, and they did nothing. For a few years the Dems held sway in Congress, and they did nothing. The problem can definitely be traced back at least to Clinton (though I've heard a lot to say it's older than him, going back even to Carter), and he did nothing to help, and at least a little to hurt, as did his democratic Congress, and the Republicans under him. To blame this on Bush because he was the last to hold the hot potatoe is ridiculous. This was a wholesale failure of our government, all of it, because even those that did sound warnings were consistently ignored by all parties.

 

Stop misrepesenting my comments and read them carefully. But again, you only proving my point....

 

The will not be set low for Obama because he is aware of the problem and has vowed to fix it. The bar should have been just as high if McCain had won. The key difference here is the incoming Congress is also aware of the problem and that it's the hot issue for their constituents -- failure means incumbants go away.

I think every tax repeal and reduction has hurt the economy over the past 30 or so years because it has added to the deficit -- once again ten trillion dollars is a staggering amount. It makes people nervous (mainly the people we owe) -- lack of consumer confidence is big in hard times. We are literally making our children endentured servants because of our own greed.

 

That's not really a response but another question, which I will answer when you are kind enough to answer mine. Also, I notice that you mention Clinton and Carter, but yet you skip over Bush I and Reagan. Care to explain?

Do you mean like how Bush was aware of this problem and vowed to fix it?

Bush/Gore 2000 - Debate #3.

 

Ok chandos we will try to make this REAL simple for you.

When Carter imposed the WP Tax there were over 300 refineries in the US & we imported at the highest 46.5% of our oil. Since then the number of refineries has fallen to less than 150 & we are importing 63-65% of our oil.
Now we only lost about 10-15% of total production with the loss of refinieries however demand has increased 40+%. We(the U.S.) haven't built a new refinery in 30 years, when instead we should have been increasing the number. Luckily there are several new ones being built but that only helps us in the future. When you increase imports you automatically hurt your bottom line.

Oh wait, i forgot, according to you, bush must have caused this.

If you don't realise that the U.S. economy as a whole is interrelated then there is no why to explain anything to you. X wasn't caused by Y, it was caused by W,Y & Z indluenced by A,B,C & D

 

Wouldn't you say that Bush -- and the entire republican party -- are paying for that vow? His approval rating is tanked for a reason.

If Obama fails to follow through I think we could expect the same response from the American public we saw just a few weeks ago (but polar opposite).

 

Martaug - I'm not going to bother to respond to your flamming. Your laziness and intellectual dishonesy make your arguments are so paper thin they would almost be amusing if you only had a sense of humor to go along with them. When you are ready to act like an adult on these boards, I will be willing to engage in a worthwhile debate. As it is, your constant baiting, trolling and flamming on these boards have lowered its standards to the point where it is pointless to engage in a rational dialogue. It's little wonder that anyone bothers to post here any longer. But then, it's quite obvious that it was your intention to ruin these boards for everyone else. I guess there are just too many "liberals" for you to deal with. Have a nice day.

 

I've been suggesting that for a couple pages now. The Companies have not been diligent in their research and development. But I guess if I'm not trashing W, you don't care...

Too little too late. They can't make cars green enough just yet. The research has lagged behind to the point where it may be too late.

And what was that 700 billion for? Were the banks that far behind on executive bonuses? NO, that was supposed to free up that money for lending, so that there would still be some credit for those that legitimately need it (like the auto sector).

I'll start with an attitude of Complacency. The US was complacent, believing that all was well and nothing bac could happen. That attitude has not gone away despite 9/11, Katrina or the credit crisis.

I've been harping on Corporate mismanagement and uncontrolled consumer spending for two threads now. How short your memory is. In a couple more months we get a break as you won't remember the Republicans ever being in the White House...

The Middle East problem started centuries before the Americas were discovered, and have steadily deteriorated since 1948, when Europe granted the Jewish survivors a homeland after the attrocities of WWII. It has become worse and worse with every president, regardless of party since then, and W had to pay the piper. If you think Obama will wave his magic wand and make it all better, you're delusional.

But W wasn't the cause of the problems, only the one that mishandled them--repeatedly. I'm not pouncing on Obama, but I'm skeptical of his ability to fix anything.

It's not any one thing that they overspend on, but consumer debt has been rising for years. This started long before Bush Sr took office and will have to stop before the economy will get any better. And that's not something your new buddy Barrak can fix...

I call it 7 years warning to make more fuel efficient vans, truckes and SUVs. They didn't do the research, and they're paying for it now by watching their customers switch to companies that did that.

That's just the consequences of disastrous events during his presidency. Two wars will do that to the nation. They probably could have handled better, but those wars were unavoidable.

 

I could not disagree more. Political responsibility of the current situation belongs to those with the power at that time. Going through the past is of no use since these people don't care. They can't do anything anymore since they are out of office and there is little you can do to punish them either. Blaming Bush for the financial crisis is absolutely correct and the right way to go. It might not be fair in all regards but such is life in politics, sometimes you have to fix the mistakes of other people and if you can't solve a mess then you have failed to do your job.

 

So, it will be okay to blame obama come january 20th, when he assumes the office of president, for the shape the country is in?
He will be in charge & the situation will be exactly the same.
No, that would be just like punishing you for everything that your dad did wrong.

 

I agree that Bush should have done more for the environment, and to reduce depencdency on oil, be it foreign or domestic. Fuel efficiency also has an upside for the concumers too. Bush could have done something, but the onus should have been on the corporations, who ultimately dropped the ball.

Instead of furthering these divisions, companies should focus on making affordable hybrids that do what Minivans, Trucks and SUV's do for the people and increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles so that there are more environmentally sound yet still realistic options for the people (beyond foreign vehicles, of course).

I knew that they weren't drilling their own oil. I jus thtought it had more to do with exhausting the supply of the Islamic nations of the Middle East...

That's something that needs to be addressed too.

So Nixon honoured a deal with an ally, so the Arabs jack up the price of oil...

So the Arab States threaten the whole economy. And it was the Carter administration that f***ed with Iran in the first place? Like I said, Bush didn't cause it, he was just in the Oval Office with the piper demanded payment. And he didn't get away with it, that payment started in 2001 with the attacks on the WTC, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But Martaug was talking about Credit cards, nto other debts that you bring up here. That, when added onto the mortgages, car loans and credit card balance sees most households pushed to the brink of disaster. In past years, 8% have been pushed over that brink, and with the economy worsening, many more will fall, thus deepening the financial crunch.

It's that reliance on consumer spending that is exactly the problem. The economy needs more spending than the consumer base can afford, thus increasing the debt load on consumers, and eventually, many of them will fall into bankrupcy. The only way for the economy to thrive is to set it so that they do not demand consumption beyond the ability to finance it...

 

No, that's not what I'm getting at. If something done during the Carter adminstration was so obviously wrong then Bush should have fixed it. If some Bush legislation turns out to be completely disasterous in the future then Obama is very much to blame for not fixing it, the same of course goes for the financial crisis. Political blame can obviously not be directed at someone who has not have the opportunity to do anything about an issue, but if things don't get any better under Obama or if they get any worse then sure even the blame will follow. I'm sure there would be some defending Obama by blaming Bush at that point but they would be equally wrong. They might have a point that there was little Obama could have done to prevent the issue, but it's all the same. He like Bush and probably every other president (or any other politician anywhere for that matter) has promised to work to improve their country and if they fai inl that promise they must pay the political price.

 

Based upon what evidence? Which green technologies are you speaking about regarding their lack of research? If you would like some help, take a look at "Green Car Journal." Or which publications are you using for your sources regarding green technology?

I'm so glad you brought that up, because it provides me an opportunity to bring into greater focus more Bush incompetence.

First, we get the "Deal:"

Here's the source, Gnarff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/20/bush-asking-for-700-billi_n_127926.html

Ah, but wait, cus:

Now we get what's known as the "bait & switch:"

But that's not all:

It's interesting, Gnarff, that you know what the 700 billion will be used for, since not even the guys who are crafting it are sure of themselves yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27905756/

But that's not what I was referring to, it was the two separate bailouts for the auto industry: The first, for the 25 billion, which has already been promised for the retooling; the second is 25 billion for the credit situation for the auto industry. They are asking for that to be paid directly from the 700 billion that seems so "mysterious" at the moment.

And here is the OTHER 25 billion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27686318/

You didn't know that the 25 billion for retooling had already been granted to auto makers, I'm guessing. That's what I was trying to explain to you awhile back.

I'm already familiar with your anti-American rhetoric, Gnarff. I know you don't think much of us, as is in evidence by a number of your posts: You don't like how we shop, or use our credit, or spend our money, or we can't afford things, and we can't compete, etc, etc, etc. I could reference any number of your posts which show your feelings about us. But you are not alone, as that has been a criticism that we have heard here for many years. Some of it is valid, and I'm not going to pretend that we don't have our faults, because we do. However, some of it is just plain jealously of how successful we have been. But the current meltdown is "GLOBAL," which means that we are not alone. Other countries are experiencing the same meltdown as we are. So I guess you have to extend that criticism to some other places as well.

 

Then you admit that this does not all lie at the feet of Bush, and that your beloved Democrats are not innocent in this matter? Or does your hatred of the Republicans still blind you to this truth. Regardless, I am skeptical of Obama's ability to fix any of these problems.

I'll believe that when I see it.

So the government needs to get their house in order before tax breaks are feasible? This begs the question of whether Obama breaks the promise of the tax cut to working people or does he dig a deeper hole for the country?

Vital interests: Kill the leader of a terrorist organization that launched a horrific attack against the nation, depose a leader who thumbed his nose at us in our time of vulnerability, make an example out of an oil producing nation that's trying to seriously hurt the economy. They're one for three...

Exit Strategy: Force their terms on the other nation. That hasn't happened either.

Same with your hatred of the Republicans. It taints your logic and distorts your conclusions. And if you insist on assigning blame to the Republicans, then you exemplify part of the problem. I said back on page 3 that for Obama to succeed, then he can't allow government to be paralysed by partisan poo-flinging. That's just what you're doing...

 

Well, that would be true if I didn't vote for any of them in the past. But I have. In fact, I voted for RR (what was I thinking?).

BTA, has asked that we not make this personal and I am willing to abide by his request, since we are all really guests on this board. But in my defense of your flamming (and others), I will tell you that I try my best to qualify the statements with research, data and facts when I can find them. I have a genuine curiosity about the issues and what kinds of solutions there are regarding some of the problems which we debate over. I can also tell you that I am holding Obama to a very high expectation because that is why he got my vote. You will find that those of us on the left side are not as forgiving of our choices as those on the other side. If he does a poor job, I will not make the kinds of apologies, deflections and excuses for him that I have heard on the other side for GWB. This better be "the real deal."

 

It's not just America where that is happening. It's just that I hear more abour America than I do about Canada. America was not the only country to make mistakes, and they aren't the only country caught with their pants down. But this thread is not about Canada or Iceland who already went under, or any other struggling country.

Canada, like America has also come out of a Federal election, where the elected politicians are promising change, but I have every confidence that when Parliament sits in January, we will be subject to the same old partisan bickering that we've been getting for years, and that the 2010 Winter games in Whistler will feature about a million attack ads against the Liberal party in preparation for another election in the spring...

If those technologies were really ready for mass production, then why aren't they already in production? My point is that they should already be producing these vehicles. The fact that they haven't made these investments and borrowed the needed money before the crisis is part of my point about mismanagement.

Which is why I don't believe that the buy out will make one iota of difference. That 700 Billion was not planned and implemented, but just thrown at the problem and put into the hands of people that really have no clue. If that's the best we can expect from government, then Obama is gonna get it worse than Bush...

Um, Shouldn't that be NOT going to pretend? It would make a big difference. But again, this thread is not about the problems of other countries, it's about the steaming pile of hell that Obama has fallen into. I still say it's beyond his power to fix most of these problems...

 

Yes it was a typo. And it's fixed. Just as I'm sure you meant to type "bad" instead of "bac."

Well, which technologies are you referring to? I may be able to point to a model already - or close to - production