President Barack Obama (official thread)

[Buckeye513]

Originally Posted by Sdgobucks

If we want to "cut our losses" without finishing the job, we need to turn the whole place to glass on our way out IMO.

What's the job?

[CookyPuss]

President Obama quietly signs landmark Great Lakes clean-up bill | OPEN: Ohio Politics - cleveland.com - - cleveland.com

President Barack Obama has okayed a large cash infusion to help clean up the Great Lakes, quietly signing a bill that was years in the making and marks a rare bipartisan milestone.

The former senator from Illinois, which borders Lake Michigan, did it on Friday. Few people knew about it until Monday.

That's because the measure with $475 million for the Great Lakes was part of a broader spending bill that included money for other projects, including $4 million with which to buy additional property for the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. And attached to that Interior and Environmental Appropriations Act was a more urgent matter, namely, temporary legislation, called a continuing resolution, to keep agencies within the United States government operating until late December.

CONT

[Sdgobucks]

Originally Posted by Buckeye513

What's the job?

Destroy the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Kill Bin Laden.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by Sdgobucks

Destroy the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Kill Bin Laden.

If you're willing to initiate Armageddon, I can buy that these are objectives that could be set. Otherwise, I'd suggest more reachable goals.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Sdgobucks

Destroy the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Kill Bin Laden.

What comprises those first two exactly? Does it include the many Pushtans who help them in various ways out of tribal or familial loyalty, even though they have no active dog in the terrorist attacks on the US and its allies hunt?

The former administration used the word "terrorist" in such an all inclusive and vague manner that it ceased to have any real meaning from a military or geo-political objective standpoint.

[Sdgobucks]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

What comprises those first two exactly? Does it include the many Pushtans who help them in various ways out of tribal or familial loyalty, even though they have no active dog in the terrorist attacks on the US and its allies hunt?

It would be nice to kill just the members of Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, but that itsnt realistic and to be honest I dont care if the people helping them get killed or not.

The former administration used the word "terrorist" in such an all inclusive and vague manner that it ceased to have any real meaning from a military or geo-political objective standpoint.

See here is where I am confused on the former administrations strategy. One terrorist group attacks us, and instead of burning every last member of that terrorist group off the face of the planet we end up attacking another country (Iraq) that really had nothing to do with the attacks in the first place, and having a "war on terror". It waters things down, and the real enemy gets away because people associate them with people that didnt really do anything.

[CookyPuss]

Haven't had a chance to read all the way through this yet, but may lend some insight into the decision process on Afghanistan:
The decision - The National Newspaper

[Sdgobucks]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

If you're willing to initiate Armageddon, I can buy that these are objectives that could be set. Otherwise, I'd suggest more reachable goals.

I don't know why destroying them would bring about Armageddon.

[Southpaw Stone]

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Unemployment rate tops 10 percent for first time since 1983; 190,000 jobs lost in October

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher.

The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing. Rising unemployment also could threaten the recovery if it saps consumers' confidence and makes them more cautious about spending as the holiday season approaches.
Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended.
The unemployed rate jumped to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs, more than economists had expected.
The number of unemployed hit 15.7 million, up from 15.1 million. The job losses occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. The job-loss total is based on a survey of businesses, separate from a survey of households that produces the unemployment rate.

link

[buxfan4life]

Originally Posted by Southpaw Stone

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Unemployment rate tops 10 percent for first time since 1983; 190,000 jobs lost in October

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher.

The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing. Rising unemployment also could threaten the recovery if it saps consumers' confidence and makes them more cautious about spending as the holiday season approaches.
Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended.
The unemployed rate jumped to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs, more than economists had expected.
The number of unemployed hit 15.7 million, up from 15.1 million. The job losses occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. The job-loss total is based on a survey of businesses, separate from a survey of households that produces the unemployment rate.

link

Carter was in office in '83? When did I miss THAT bus?

Although I did not vote for the man, this economy really falls on the heads of the other elected officials and not so much the President, IMO.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by buxfan4life

Carter was in office in '83? When did I miss THAT bus?

Although I did not vote for the man, this economy really falls on the heads of the other elected officials and not so much the President, IMO.

the economy is the economy, and it really doesn't fall on any individual elected officals head. in all honesty, who is going to be the one to stop a run of prosperity? if bush had done something in 2004 or 2005 to temper home prices we wouldn't be in this mess, but at the time that would have looked like suicide, and everyone would have ridiculed him worse than they are now. its the same as if clinton had done something to stop the tech bubble. IMO, presidents themselves have nothing to do with the economy.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

IMO, presidents themselves have nothing to do with the economy.

I wouldn't say "nothing" but I'd definitely agree with "a hell of a lot less than people tend to think".

[Tresselbeliever]

Presidents exercise large influence over monetary and fiscal policies. Keeping a tight monetary policy is easier said than done, which is why Nixon would rather devalue the dollar and Carter letting gold skyrocket to 2000 before Reagan finally came along to stamp out the loose money. The President also has a decisive role over federal spending and make decisions over tax rates based on the levels needed to accommodate spending programs. In addition, the President also sets the agenda over foreign trade, which affects numerous industries, big and small. Just like how we can have two decades of prosperity led by Reagan's strong dollar and tax reforms, we can also stumble into a decade marked by three sharp recessions like in the 70s as a direct result of guns and butter and the money and tax policies used to support them.

[xcrunner]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

Presidents exercise large influence over monetary and fiscal policies. Keeping a tight monetary policy is easier said than done, which is why Nixon would rather devalue the dollar and Carter letting gold skyrocket to 2000 before Reagan finally came along to stamp out the loose money. The President also has a decisive role over federal spending and make decisions over tax rates based on the levels needed to accommodate spending programs. In addition, the President also sets the agenda over foreign trade, which affects numerous industries, big and small. Just like how we can have two decades of prosperity led by Reagan's strong dollar and tax reforms, we can also stumble into a decade marked by three sharp recessions like in the 70s as a direct result of guns and butter and the money and tax policies used to support them.

Of course, Reagan also raised the deficit to what, 3trillion, from under 1 trillion? Or something along those lines.

I would probably say that a president can [censored] up the economy decently enough, but "fixing" it is pretty difficult. That's just my intuition though.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by xcrunner

Of course, Reagan also raised the deficit to what, 3trillion, from under 1 trillion? Or something along those lines.

Are you talking National Debt or budget deficit?

I would probably say that a president can [censored] up the economy decently enough, but "fixing" it is pretty difficult. That's just my intuition though.

Congress can [censored] up an economy a LOT easier than a President can.

The President (any President) could say something dumb and there might be a blip on the stock market, but eventually things might even out.

Congress can do things that are (Cap N Trade bull[censored] for example) much more permanent.