--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" <seekliberation@...> 
wrote:
>
> Wool over my eyes?  what part of my post in that first paragraph is untrue? 
> (or was it a subsequent paragraph?) Some of it is opinion and gut instinct, 
> but the defecit numbers and his claim of reducing the deficit 5 trillion are 
> fact.  Moreover, I can't say I've heard him speak of any subject where I 
> really felt he knew in depth what he was talking about.  He is simply fluent 
> in his speech and more balanced in how he presents things, which is what 
> assists him in looking like an expert. 
> 
> Is there something about BHO that makes you feel (or know) that
> he is thoroughly informed and knowledgeable about in terms of
> its effect on the entire country?

Um, no, but I don't believe I've suggested that he is. I'm
not a big fan of his by any means.

My problem is with the dangerously simplistic, demonstrably
inaccurate, and frequently deceptively promoted (not by you)
notion that our biggest problem is the deficit rather than
the lack of demand generated by the financial crisis that
happened under Bush.

Even Obama appears at times to buy into this notion, at
least for public consumption. But the U.S. is not in any way
like a household that needs to "tighten its belt." That's a
thoroughly bogus and destructive analogy, whoever is making it.

Cutting back on spending is not the answer, both because it
will do yet more damage to the economy (look at the results
of the "austerity" programs abroad) and because in the present
situation, more deficit spending to increase demand, which
is just about the only thing that will really *help* the
economy, is not even remotely the disaster it's portrayed
as, not with interest rates and inflation as low as they
are, with no indications they're going to rise 
significantly anytime soon.

Fixing the economy has to come *first*, before we'll be in a
position to tackle the deficit without doing irreparable
harm. Reversing that order would be the real disaster.







> Not trying to propose a nasty 'Turq' like argument.  I'm genuinely curious to 
> find out what it is that BHO is an expert of in terms of national level 
> decisions.  You can exclude his military decisions since i've already 
> expressed that he's been, for the most part, far in the positive side of 
> that.  
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" <seekliberation@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I wouldn't go as far as saying Obama is 'nowhere' near the Bush 
> > > level of incompetence.  I will say, however, he is a 100 times 
> > > better at looking like he knows what he is doing than Bush.
> > > Bush just couldn't hide how uneducated he really was or how much
> > > of a narcissist he was.  Obama plays it much cooler.  But when 
> > > someone adds an additional 6 trillion to the deficit after a
> > > claim that he will reduce the deficit by 5 Trillion (a claim
> > > that requires either a liar or someone in fantasy land), it is 
> > > clear to me that Obama simply has no idea what he's doing.
> > 
> > Or, whoever has been writing whatever you've been reading
> > either has no idea what they're talking about or is pulling
> > the wool over your eyes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > In fact, the only thing i'd give Obama a passing grade on, perhaps a B or 
> > > B- is his handling of the military.  Unfortunately for many Soldiers and 
> > > Marines who side with Republicans, they don't realize that Reps over the 
> > > last 30 years have been more likely to send in the larger forces that 
> > > result in more money spent and more casualties.  Dems, OTOH, prefer to 
> > > focus on special operations units for more small-scale operations.  They 
> > > only use the more professional units to accomplish the bare minimum it 
> > > takes.  That is how Obama has been dealing with terrorism.  Bush sent in 
> > > a herd of elephants, while BHO sends the snakes in the grass.  Smarter, 
> > > more cost-effective, and less people die.  It would've been an A if he 
> > > wouldn't have gone and added women to infantry units.  
> > > 
> > > But aside from a smarter and more intelligent use of the military, I 
> > > don't see much improvement from BHO over GWB, only a little.  The reason 
> > > I see the comparison is that both represent what has become the icon of a 
> > > typical 'modern-day American Male'.  All talk, all reliance on 
> > > connections and friends, all speech, all image, all reputation, but no 
> > > real depth of character that I can see in either one.  
> > > 
> > > seekliberation
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Errrr...you're way off track here, IMHO. I'm not a big Obama
> > > > fan, and he has definitely made mistakes, but he's nowhere
> > > > near the Bush level of incompetence and lack of substance.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   GWB, allegedly, was notorius for a poor work ethic and failure to 
> > > > apply himself prior to his political career.  He had to live off his 
> > > > father's money and reputation.  BHO never really held a major 
> > > > responsibility other than graduating college prior to his political 
> > > > career.  Both represent a high level of confidence that is not backed 
> > > > by any depth of experience.  BHO is at least a good speaker, but that's 
> > > > about it.  This is Modern America at its finest.  All outward 
> > > > appearance, no substance.  And this is all we look for in politicians 
> > > > these days, this is what we find attractive.
> > > > > 
> > > > > seekliberation
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, wgm4u, If you could make George W. Bush President again, today, 
> > > > > > would you? Obama immediately steps down - Bush steps in, with his 
> > > > > > staff. Right now. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Bet a shiver ran down your back when I said that, huh? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/video/doctor-slams-debt-health-care-221909235.html
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Says our tax policy should be based on the Bible--"If it was
> > > > > > > > good enough for God..."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I kid you not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Unlike Obama who just gives religion and the bible lip service, 
> > > > > > > Dr. Carson is the real deal, refreshing! Obama is pretty much 
> > > > > > > just a phony, watch him squirm.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to