Quote

747400, on 09 November 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Indeed, I think that what any Prsdnt can actually do in terms of the Economy and so on is very limited, so perhaps that's why they make such a big issue of International affairs, where they can score points at home by being Firm and all the rest of it, and please those who are pulling the strings by pursuing whatever shady motives they may have. The President is there to serve, certainly; but it's not the People they're there to servce, is it?
Babe Ruth, on 09 November 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:
You hit the nail on the head!
No, he does not serve the people, he serves his masters, and they are hidden behind the curtain. The purpose of today's mainstream media is to keep the curtain firmly in place, while the purpose of honest media and whistleblowers is to pull the curtain back.
Greenspan warned us we were in for a long period of high employment, because deregulating the banks lead to serious trouble, and there was noout way of this besides the economic pain we have suffered. As Bill Clinton said during the campaign, no president could fix our economy faster than it takes to recover from the past banking and spending mistakes. We should be talking Reaganoics and deregulation of banks, and sending our industry over seas, not blaming presidents. That is to look at the policies and the result of following them. I am sure we will not agree on what is the best decisions, as it childish to expect a president to resolve all the problems.
Obama responded to the financial crisis that became obvious after he had entered the race to be our President, by taking the course Roosevelt took, and this did mininzed the pain, and our economy is doing better than European economies. Yes, our debt is increasing, but things would have been worse if Obama had not taken the course Roosevelt took.
I don't think we say nearly enough about the debt caused by Bush taking us to war without budgeting for it, and without selling war bonds, but going to war completely on credit. A debt we must now pay plus interest. In this day of insane credit spending, I guess we have to put political responsibility in the constitution and spell out, a president can not enter us in a war, without a congress approved plan for paying for it.
While looking into possibility of nuclear war, I came across pictures of extremely expensive bombers being warehoused in Arizona, because these jets built to delivery nuclear bombs are out dated. We are spending huge sums of money on very expensive military weapons, that are rapidly out dated, and this is besides the expense of war. This spending on military research and technology looks like healthy economic growth with great jobs, and at the same time, it is a main factor in our national debt. It was Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush that took us down this path. Clinton and Obama have tried to wean us off this military spending, but we can't just cut the cost without crashing our economy. What do you want?
Edited by me-wonders, 09 November 2012 - 10:15 PM.