Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
- Thread starter David_1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The auto rescue plan has worked
Kinda thought the bailouts were on Bush's watch, but could be wrong.
a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
I sincerely doubt this
To the contrary, ACA levels the playing field and will be good for economic growth. Where previously only large corporations could afford employee health care plans, in the future far more employees will have far more equitable coverage. Further, today employees frequently are unable to leave a company to start a new business because they would lose health care, which in the future will not be true.
Propaganda. This colors the entire article. The complete failure of Obamacare has colored this administration and its ''accomplishments''.
Isn't the wall street boom directly associated with the government pouring...billions?...into it?
This isn't a news article its an editorial, and quite slanted. 90,000,000 americans out of work does not spell a good economy
Kinda thought the bailouts were on Bush's watch, but could be wrong.
a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
I sincerely doubt this
To the contrary, ACA levels the playing field and will be good for economic growth. Where previously only large corporations could afford employee health care plans, in the future far more employees will have far more equitable coverage. Further, today employees frequently are unable to leave a company to start a new business because they would lose health care, which in the future will not be true.
Propaganda. This colors the entire article. The complete failure of Obamacare has colored this administration and its ''accomplishments''.
Isn't the wall street boom directly associated with the government pouring...billions?...into it?
This isn't a news article its an editorial, and quite slanted. 90,000,000 americans out of work does not spell a good economy
i guess sorta like the House GOP voting bloc in 2008 who declared that they would make stopping anything the president tried to do, and doing whatever it took to make the president look bad in the public eye so that he wouldn't be re-elected their number one priority (instead of, say.. helping us out of the recession?) most people already have their minds made up about our current president, and no amount of facts will change their mind.
S
Forbes has a lot of guest "journalists" these days. This is a new tactic to expand reader base.
A publication will have two different journalists, one praises, while one writes a scathing editorial. It expands their reader base. With tracking cookies a site will serve up the version they think you will like the best.
A publication will have two different journalists, one praises, while one writes a scathing editorial. It expands their reader base. With tracking cookies a site will serve up the version they think you will like the best.
The two goals you mentioned went together in the eyes of most GOP Leaders. It doesn't sound as elegant, but one can honestly seek to stop someone else's agenda if they believe it is a necessary step in ensuring national survival and eventual prosperity.
You're definitely right about the last sentence. Most politically minded people will either love him or hate him and keep it that way.
You're definitely right about the last sentence. Most politically minded people will either love him or hate him and keep it that way.
T
Sure, if you like living in a socialist/communist country, because that is what the USA is turning into under this president.
"We are five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America." - Obama just before the election.
Is "Forbes" the same Steve Forbes? Because every time I hear him, he never speaks of anything other than capitalism being right for America.
"We are five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America." - Obama just before the election.
Is "Forbes" the same Steve Forbes? Because every time I hear him, he never speaks of anything other than capitalism being right for America.
sigh.
...
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics
by Dr. K R Bolton
May 4, 2010
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”—H. G. Wells.[1]
The Marxist premise was that socialism must proceed from a capitalist economy.
Hence Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto:
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.[3]
Marx further stated:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.[4]
In Marx’s own day, he saw the then dominant and newly emerging Free Trade School as part of a necessary dialectical process of history that makes more acute the antagonism between the classes, internationalizes the proletariat and indeed as “precipitating the social revolution.”
...
Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy for the purpose of bringing Russia, hitherto still undeveloped industrially, into the stage of industrial development required as the prerequisite for building socialism, and opened the new Soviet state to foreign capital.[5] Today, the Chinese leadership can rationalize capitalist economic innovations on the basis that China must first develop a certain economic phase before proceeding to a fuller socialist economy. Vietnam at the moment, after having spent much of its history fighting for sovereignty against foreign domination, whether it be that of ancient China, or colonial France, or the American presence, now succumbs to the global economic development model and has entered the world economy, subjecting herself to World Bank and International Monetary Fund “guidance” and “advice”, and having 42% of its GDP serving debt, which the World Bank assures us is an acceptable debt level.[6] Here again Vietnam’s leadership is within the Marxian dialectical framework of building its economy through capitalist structures and debt as a prelude to socialism and ultimately to communism, assuming that a state once becoming part of the international financial structure can ever remove itself.
...
Capitalism and Dialectics
What is not generally recognized is that capitalism also has a dialectical approach to history. In this dialectical capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a “Brave New World” centralized world economy controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by technocrats and boards of directors. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown. As stated above H. G. Wells opined—approvingly—at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that Big Business and communism are both paths to the same end—”Collectivism.” The “socialistic” orientation of certain capitalists at the apex of the world economy is exemplified by a statement by the late Nelson Rockefeller of the famous capitalist dynasty: “I’m a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”[7]
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics | Foreign Policy Journal
etc.
they plan.
centuries in advance.
...
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics
by Dr. K R Bolton
May 4, 2010
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”—H. G. Wells.[1]
The Marxist premise was that socialism must proceed from a capitalist economy.
Hence Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto:
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.[3]
Marx further stated:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.[4]
In Marx’s own day, he saw the then dominant and newly emerging Free Trade School as part of a necessary dialectical process of history that makes more acute the antagonism between the classes, internationalizes the proletariat and indeed as “precipitating the social revolution.”
...
Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy for the purpose of bringing Russia, hitherto still undeveloped industrially, into the stage of industrial development required as the prerequisite for building socialism, and opened the new Soviet state to foreign capital.[5] Today, the Chinese leadership can rationalize capitalist economic innovations on the basis that China must first develop a certain economic phase before proceeding to a fuller socialist economy. Vietnam at the moment, after having spent much of its history fighting for sovereignty against foreign domination, whether it be that of ancient China, or colonial France, or the American presence, now succumbs to the global economic development model and has entered the world economy, subjecting herself to World Bank and International Monetary Fund “guidance” and “advice”, and having 42% of its GDP serving debt, which the World Bank assures us is an acceptable debt level.[6] Here again Vietnam’s leadership is within the Marxian dialectical framework of building its economy through capitalist structures and debt as a prelude to socialism and ultimately to communism, assuming that a state once becoming part of the international financial structure can ever remove itself.
...
Capitalism and Dialectics
What is not generally recognized is that capitalism also has a dialectical approach to history. In this dialectical capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a “Brave New World” centralized world economy controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by technocrats and boards of directors. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown. As stated above H. G. Wells opined—approvingly—at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that Big Business and communism are both paths to the same end—”Collectivism.” The “socialistic” orientation of certain capitalists at the apex of the world economy is exemplified by a statement by the late Nelson Rockefeller of the famous capitalist dynasty: “I’m a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”[7]
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics | Foreign Policy Journal
etc.
they plan.
centuries in advance.
I remember there was a guy where I used to work. He was in charge of the maintenance budget for the plant. He was praised for lowing maintenance cost year after year. Two years after he left the plant started falling apart. The power station kept going down, the lines kept breaking down. How did that guy manage to lower the cost of maintenance ? He cut back on preventative maintenance.
You won't know until after he has gone if he was really good or not.
You won't know until after he has gone if he was really good or not.
It didn't take 6 years for the economy to bounce back with Reagan. Yeah the debt went up for most of Reagan's terms but it was dropping toward the end when the military was finally restored after the cuts Carter made.
90,000,000. That's ninety million for the liberals who seem to have a problem with accounting and numbers.
There is no good economy with 90 million people unemployed no matter how you fudge the numbers.
No dot com false economies.
No foolishness of cutting taxes but raising spending....W.
By the way, it was mentioned in the article about the stimulus package? Not sure kickbacks to your political allies counts as helping the economy.
Funny how Al Gore got rich from green tech...that did not work and cost the government more money.
Funny how a lot of these liberal politicians come to washington with nothing and leave millionaires....congressmen do not make that kind of money.
Its absolutely ridiculous for liberals to support this great society that makes a few rich on the backs of the rest of us. Just a fyi that systemic ideology is...liberalism.
Amazing. I think everyone who voted for this president should be appointed new ambassadors to Lybia.
90,000,000. That's ninety million for the liberals who seem to have a problem with accounting and numbers.
There is no good economy with 90 million people unemployed no matter how you fudge the numbers.
No dot com false economies.
No foolishness of cutting taxes but raising spending....W.
By the way, it was mentioned in the article about the stimulus package? Not sure kickbacks to your political allies counts as helping the economy.
Funny how Al Gore got rich from green tech...that did not work and cost the government more money.
Funny how a lot of these liberal politicians come to washington with nothing and leave millionaires....congressmen do not make that kind of money.
Its absolutely ridiculous for liberals to support this great society that makes a few rich on the backs of the rest of us. Just a fyi that systemic ideology is...liberalism.
Amazing. I think everyone who voted for this president should be appointed new ambassadors to Lybia.