|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 18, 2011 22:27:00 GMT -8
Obama is in trouble for two main reasons. First, his ideas in general are bad. Second, and this is really worse than the first reason, he came into office with no executive experience whatsoever and, apparently, no inclination to learn quickly. Even if you begin operating with faulty presuppositions, you may yet recover if you adjust quickly to changing situations. Obama has not done that. Here is one line from Goldberg's piece that is especially on target. It has to do with the basis for believing in the ability of government to cure economic troubles. (Emphasis mine.) (getting government infrastructure projects off the ground) involves endless paperwork, union regulations, environmental red tape, and the like. That's why it only took 410 days to build the Empire State building and 16 months to build the Pentagon but nearly 20 years to complete Boston's Big Dig.www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/17/a_shovel-ready_punch_line_110256.htmlWe have, essentially, lost two years. It may take us many more years to get the economy going even if govt. policies change for the better. And who believes that this administration is going to change its policies? I, for one, do not. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 19, 2011 0:06:15 GMT -8
Hundreds of Billions of Dollars frittered away and our President has a chuckle. At this rate he will soon be unelectable, even as an incumbent.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2011 6:38:42 GMT -8
I saw yesterday where Obama blames part of our unemployment problem on ATMs replacing tellers. It is hard to imagine anyone so naive about economics.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 19, 2011 6:48:17 GMT -8
Obama is in trouble, if at at, because people are not working. He will be hurt as well if he gives in to Republicans on Medicare and Social Security. If he engages the Republicans on their lemming like stupidity of addressing the debt without looking at revenue, assuming it is good policy to address a debt during a demand contraction (which is stupid), Obama will be toast. Ultimately people will act in their own interest. That is why Republicans spend so much time obfuscating.
As for administrative ability, Republicans had Reagan and Bush (the GW edition). Obama is smarter than both of those added together.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2011 7:47:15 GMT -8
As for administrative ability, Republicans had Reagan and Bush (the GW edition). Obama is smarter than both of those added together. It is hard to say how smart Obama is. We can't find anything about his College or even High School records. Just what is his real IQ? I think before we compare him to Reagan, Bush, Palin or even Jimmy Carter, that we see how he measures up to San Diego's own Kenny Allen. That would be a better starting point.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 19, 2011 9:40:23 GMT -8
As for administrative ability, Republicans had Reagan and Bush (the GW edition). Obama is smarter than both of those added together. It is hard to say how smart Obama is. We can't find anything about his College or even High School records. Just what is his real IQ? I think before we compare him to Reagan, Bush, Palin or even Jimmy Carter, that we see how he measures up to San Diego's own Kenny Allen. That would be a better starting point. ROFL Do you never tire of being a buffoon? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 19, 2011 10:38:29 GMT -8
Obama is in trouble, if at at, because people are not working. He will be hurt as well if he gives in to Republicans on Medicare and Social Security. If he engages the Republicans on their lemming like stupidity of addressing the debt without looking at revenue, assuming it is good policy to address a debt during a demand contraction (which is stupid), Obama will be toast. Ultimately people will act in their own interest. That is why Republicans spend so much time obfuscating. As for administrative ability, Republicans had Reagan and Bush (the GW edition). Obama is smarter than both of those added together. , increasing revenue will occur when the economy picks up. Merely raising tax rates does not automatically bring in more money. The higher the marginal rates, the more our wealthy individuals try (and usually succeed) in avoiding taxes with the various means open to them, such as investing in tax-free bonds. Of course, we can always use the other method of improving the national balance sheet; namely, lower federal expenditures. Second, I would not bee too sure about Obama's intelligence. If he's so smart, why does he stick to ideas and policies which have been invalidated by practical experience? Also, I caution you to not be so sure about the intelligence of former Presidents. For one thing, raw intelligence does not automatically translate into good policy. For instance, let's consider Jimmy Carter. I am confident that his intelligence is definitely above average (he did graduate from Annapolis, after all). That did not prevent him from exercising very poor judgment while in office. (I'll not bash him here for his actions after leaving office.) It is one of the prime defects of the Left to assume the worst regarding the intelligence of Republican politicians. Eisenhower was considered barely above the low normal level in IQ when in office, but we now realize that Ike was one cagey dude who may not have been polished linguistically but who nevertheless was nobody's fool. Reagan was also far smarter than his opponents thought. G.W. Bush? Well, he had slightly higher grades in college than did John Kerry. Okay. I admit that is not saying much. The bottom line is this. Those on the Left, since they think they have all the noble, virtuous, and intelligent ideas on their side, automatically assume that anyone who does not agree with them must be mentally defective. Underestimating your opponents is a very dangerous conceit. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 20, 2011 9:13:40 GMT -8
As for administrative ability, Republicans had Reagan and Bush (the GW edition). Obama is smarter than both of those added together. It is hard to say how smart Obama is. We can't find anything about his College or even High School records. Just what is his real IQ? I think before we compare him to Reagan, Bush, Palin or even Jimmy Carter, that we see how he measures up to San Diego's own Kenny Allen. That would be a better starting point. Nice monkey, ape, reference Archie.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 20, 2011 10:14:39 GMT -8
It is hard to say how smart Obama is. We can't find anything about his College or even High School records. Just what is his real IQ? I think before we compare him to Reagan, Bush, Palin or even Jimmy Carter, that we see how he measures up to San Diego's own Kenny Allen. That would be a better starting point. ROFL Do you never tire of being a buffoon? If that is what you think, I think I know who the buffoon really is. Just who do you think Obama is as smart as? Kenny Allen is the first hurdle. I doubt very much that he will meet that first challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 20, 2011 10:27:22 GMT -8
It is hard to say how smart Obama is. We can't find anything about his College or even High School records. Just what is his real IQ? I think before we compare him to Reagan, Bush, Palin or even Jimmy Carter, that we see how he measures up to San Diego's own Kenny Allen. That would be a better starting point. Nice monkey, ape, reference Archie. Most people have forgotten just how smart Kenny Allen was compared to his attendants. I am not making any kind of racial remark or anything like that, it is just about the intellectual or even common sense comparison. I have already said Kenny was smarter than the zoo employees, so you have no reason to make any kind of unfounded charges in that respect. I often wonder why some of you guys are so thin skinned and think the worst of people only trying to find a fair yardstick by which to measure Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Jun 21, 2011 5:06:11 GMT -8
What about Truman? He was raised on a farm in Missouri and was about as down to earth as you can get. Would today's liberals consider him dumb simply because he was not a polished orator?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 21, 2011 13:18:56 GMT -8
What about Truman? He was raised on a farm in Missouri and was about as down to earth as you can get. Would today's liberals consider him dumb simply because he was not a polished orator? No, not just for that reason. As with Cleveland, Lincoln, Washington, and others, he did not graduate from "university", and never even tried for a "masturs" in "poli-sci". By today's libtard standards, those rubes would be lucky to get a job carrying the mail. wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_7_presidents_did_not_graduate_college |
|
