The Official Obama debate thread.

[Q]

A couple of questions:

 

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

 

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

 

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

 

Just wondering.

[Adavardes]

A couple of questions:

 

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

 

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth. If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

 

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

 

Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives? And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue. You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.

 

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

 

Just wondering.

 

Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work? Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

[mur'phon]

Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche.

 

Monopolize and compeete? The whole point of monopolizing is to not need to compeete, which raises prices, lowers production, and stffles inovation. Competition on the other hand does the opposite of this.

 

And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have.

 

Well, that's sorta why they exist, if you are a shareholder in a company, do you want them to not try to earn as much as possible? It is this greed that fuels competition, and with all the benefits it bring, I don't mind if greed is the motivator.

 

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy.

 

Good that we both agree that regulation is needed, though we probably disagree on what kind. Just out of curiosity, who decides if someone have too much money? And what if their money is earned by expanding/starting new companies that employ hordes of people? Would you take away their incentive to create new jobs just because they have too much money?

 

This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume.

 

I'm not sure how one would remove both monopolies and competition, they are polar opposites, unless you mean the state should organize business like a cartell (which is ilegal now, for good reason). Untill you clarify this, I can't comment on the "prices will go down part".

 

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either.

 

Another thing we agree on, health care for everyone. However, I wonder how you intend to push down doctor wages, without A: significantly reducing the number of people educating themselves as such, and B: Making the doctors who do the education head for greener pastures in other countries.

 

There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation,

 

And you believe the government would use them properly? Why would they bother?

 

amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there.

 

Unless you are using a far broader definition of rich than what is common, then no, they don't have that much, in adition, expect them to abandon ship(country) if you squeese them too hard.

 

If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts.

 

Obama is not the one I doubt is capable, the ones under him who actually is going to implement things I would be fare more concerned about.

 

The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

 

Care to cite any examples of a working, balanced and cotrolled economy?

 

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.

 

Economy is like Swiss cheese, there are holes everywhere, though your particular chunk seems holier than Jaes chunk:xp:

 

Edit

 

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.

 

What is a product worth then if it is not what people are willing to pay for it?

 

If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

 

Where is the incentive in making good products, make production more eficent, develop new tech etc if you are paid the exact same amount no matter what, and don't risk seeing your company bankrupt? Ever seen the products of state controlled economies?

 

Because it's what they want to do?

Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?

 

But if I enjoy working as a mechanic, and studdying law, what do you think I'll choose if the wages are the same?

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

 

Technological development at the speed of light, standards of living our forefathers could only dream about, need I continue?

[Q]

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.

And here I thought outsourcing did that. But seriously, products like that do have their niche, but they can't dominate because there is a large part of the market that is willing to pay for quality.

If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway.

With price-fixing, yes, they will be cheaper, but without competition the quality will suck because there will be no reason to improve it.

What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

What incentive is there to make quality products if there is no extra profit?

Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives?

They should, yes, and a lot do. The fact of the matter is that without the fat paycheck we're going to have a lot fewer doctors.

And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue.

With what? Higher taxes? Where is all of this tax money going to come from? The percentage of the population whose income you've destroyed by eliminating competition, perhaps?

You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.

And you're ignoring reality. Again.

 

Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?

Not me. I enjoy the paycheck, not the work. That's why it's called work.

Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society.

You're right: it should be, but it isn't. People are more greedy than altruistic. Sad fact.

I mean, look where it got us.

If you're referring to our present financial woes, most if not all of them can be traced back to a single cause: our extremely corrupt government, more of which is hardly the answer.

[mimartin]

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.[/Quote] I get what you are trying to say, but I disagree. This goes against everything I’ve seen in academia and the real world. If you are unable to compete on price with your competition one effective alternative is product differentiation. So if your product is superior in quality or application you could use that as a selling point over price.

 

Without completion there are no incentives in quantity, quality or innovations.

If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway.[/Quote] Without competition, what incentives are there to make better or cheaper products? Now if I don’t like the toilet paper I’m using I can choice from numerous other toilet paper brands. However, if you limited it to one, then no matter the cost or the quality, I’m going to buy that brand because the alternative is unacceptable to me.

[Tommycat]

A person making over $250k a year employs people.

 

He might buy a new car every year. If it's a foreign(made) make, it at least gives money to the dealership in the US, as well as to the sales person. If it's a domestic(made), the benefits are obvious.

 

If he buys a new house, that means construction jobs. Lots of them.

 

Rich tend to not want to clean up their houses, but like to have a clean house. They would rather pay someone. That's a maid's position.

 

They like art. That's an artist getting paid(or an auction house).

 

If you're talking about strictly need. Our economy is based around buying things that we don't really need.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm a doctor. I'm never going to be a filthy rich plastic surgeon and make 900 zillion bucks a year. Fine. I work where I do because I like what I do, even though I could make 3 times more working in a number of places far away from family. My choice. However, why should I put off 11 years of earning wages to go to school, working my butt off in a way that only a small percentage of the population can (being a doctor isn't a job everyone can learn to do or wants to do), to take a crap wage no better than the burger-flipping job I had during college? Furthermore, do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs every year? I'm lucky that I don't have to pay nearly as much as some of my colleagues. Neurosurgeons and OB/GYNs have to pay 100,000 dollars a year _just_ for malpractice insurance because of the higher risk of lawsuits (someone has in imperfect baby, it of course is the doctor's fault, not their own if they smoked and did drugs while pregnant). Are you planning on doctor immunity to lawsuits along with giving them the crap wage?

 

I'm not asking to make an obscene wage, but my skills, knowledge, and yes, work, because doing that job is definitely NOT effortless, are worth a hell of a lot more in salary than the housecleaning job I did at a hotel when I was a student. If the gov't comes in and says "Oh, your salary is capped at x" and my taxes increase dramatically, I don't care how much I love seeing my patients, I'm out of there. It's not worth the cost of driving to and from work, daycare expenses, keeping up my license and malpractic insurance, the cost of required continuing education (which is NOT cheap), and the increased taxes at the higher end of the tax bracket. I don't work for free. If I wanted a mindless burger-flipping salary, I'd go work at McDonald's again where I wouldn't have responsibility for people's sight and sometimes even their lives. If I'm going to spend time and money maintaining a high level of expertise for my patients via journals/continuing ed classes/etc., and deal with the work involved in seeing patients--some of whom are nice, some of whom are complete a-holes, have a high level of responsibility (if I make a mistake flipping a burger, big deal, I get another out of the freezer. I make a mistake in diagnosis? Someone can go blind.), then I expect to be paid in accordance with those increased skills, knowledge, and level of responsibility. Otherwise, I'd just as soon stay home and have fun with my kids.

[jonathan7]

Doctors work very hard, and get a salary that is indicative of the intelligence and dedication that is needed to become one. If you lower the amount paid you may well lower the standard of care you receive, I for one would rather receive the best health care I can get, and as such that means Doctors being rewarded for their work.

 

Now things maybe different in the U.S. but my dad is a doctor; he is a GP (family doctor) and the government gets away with making him work illegal hours (i.e. 13 hour days) because he's technically self employed; so he deserves his money. Furthermore if we are going to moan about wages, why don't we moan about the wages professional sports men and woman get; who in reality don't do anything important, where as doctors save lives; fact.

[mur'phon]

Sportsmen does something important, they make a lot of money for their owners. Money which they make because we are willing to pay, directly or indirectly to watch them. If they make ridicolus amounts of money, it is only because we let them. Is it fair to the doctors, and others who do more "worthy" things? No, but the only ones who can change it is us, as consumers.

[Yar-El]

Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.

[mur'phon]

Why would he fail at passing a law capping wages? It's a popular measure especially with democrats but also many republicans. It's a wonderfull bill to support, popular with the people, and it won't have any effect in practice. Besides, from what I know it would only apply to firms bailed out in the future, so don't see why anyone would want to fight a bill they aren't afected by.

[Yar-El]

I must have crossed lines here. Regulating companies who benefit from a bailout is good; however, Bernie Mac and the Secretary of Treasury also made another comment. They feel it may be important to regulate and place a salary cap on all US companies.

[mur'phon]

Still, it's not as if they won't weasel around any laws, my points still stand.

[jonathan7]

What did people make of the recent marriage of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.

It's Illuminati, get your evil secret societies with plans of world domination straight or no one's gonna take you seriously.

 

http://illuminati-icons.blogspot.com/

[Jae Onasi]

Bernie Mac was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.

[Yar-El]

Bernie Mac was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.

I made such a mistake. I need to look up the articles again. Sorry.

[Yar-El]

MSNBC Article - Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners

Sides with Bush, says detainees can't challenge detention in U.S. courts

 

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

 

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

 

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

 

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

 

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

 

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

 

Embracing Bush policy

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

 

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

 

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

 

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

 

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

 

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

[Darth Avlectus]

OH? Well I cannot exactly say that I am surprised it turned out like this. This war is too big. I had the feeling it would end up taking a turn like this. I seriously hate when I'm right.

 

OK, I just can't help it. I gotta point out some ironies......wait ironies? No no no. Wait.........Nah, this isn't credible. YAR! You've been rousting racoons again! Haven't you?! Where did you come up with this....thisss.....this dreg?!

 

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

 

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

 

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

 

If it is any consolation, hope is a dirty word because you can be let down.

Sorry he did not make your expectations.

 

I guess the Obama administration changed its mind??? Maybe???

...Nah, he's just going with the flow like every president has done. Gotta play it cool. Right? Gotta...

 

...Wait, I thought he promised that his administration wasn't going to do the politics and BS like all the administrations before it?

He did. Big surprise there. The world is not as rosy as we've painted it. He's only human. This is politics.

 

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

 

No ****? So you mean they may actually know legitimate things about the combatants that the average American doesn't?

[mimicks Anakin/Vader's voice] LIAR!

 

Embracing Bush policy

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

A whole month to deliberate? He promised on the campaign trail that he'd close 'em all down immediately once in office.

 

Such a shame isn't it? ...NO? They actually needed that month because this is such a delicate matter? Well okay then. Maybe it is a necessity to have these prisons. Maybe a month just isn't enough time to decide? Just a reminder: It is lives we are talking about here after all. Also, torture is an atrocity is it not?

 

Seriously. BTW, remember, we also promised to be better in our decision making process than George Bush's regime, like not taking too long.

 

Not that this is any big deal. Don't sweat the small stuff. Be cool, now. Be cool.

 

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

 

Hmm. From the ACLU, huh? Now that's saying something.

 

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action.

Hmm. Maybe I'm off my hinges, but does any this sound the least bit familiar at all?

The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

No. Seriously, now. Where have I heard something like this before? I could swear I'm having a Deja-Vu right now.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it.

This early on in the administration? Let us hope he will seriously live up to his promises to at least review the policies, then. Eventually.....

 

So...Trust his judgement. ......Just like we trusted all of our idol presidents.

 

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

 

Now why would they need to have that? Seriously? Why would they do that? Wait a minute. Why didn't we hear about this as it hppened just like on the campaign trail? 'Cuz, oh no, the media would never favor anyone. It's totally objective despite the fact it is a corporate business run by humans--people with their own opinions and agendas.

 

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

 

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

 

Wait he approved it? Maybe there actually is a legitimate need for it, then. Well, that or he is just as corrupt as anyone else in politics.

 

...Boeing? Funny. Wasn't that company sorta contributing to Obama's campaign??? Funny how they disguised their company name's font to be like Bose to seem more family friendly, isn't it? Ironic. He talks of closing one prison for its attrocities while keeping the other open. Also ironic.

 

No no no--he never took any money form them. It's a lie! They are a military corporation!

 

All in all, though, I saw this coming. I was right to be cynical. Promises to close these facilities down wile in the middle of a war, even if it is being dragged out, are most likely false. Though, I won't dock anyone points for having hope: Admittedly, there were many who had hoped George Bush was going to start doing things to stabilize the economy and to make it competitive again. Didn't pan out there now, did it?

 

It was nice to cling to the belief and all, but now that reality has kicked in, it's time to get real.

 

For some this is affirmation that the threat was real; for others this may be confirmation that you can't trust politicians because, well, they lie. Whoops. Guess America really stepped in it this time.

 

Either way, I saw incoming this for miles out.

[Yar-El]

Hope, Change, and Obama will save your soul! Testify!

 

What a joke.

 

I kind of thought Obama would have to embrace some of Bush Doctrine. Wait! Didn't he run and win an election taking a stance against Bush's policies?

 

I agree with most of the Bush Doctrine. Why? We are dealing with a foreign threat, and it is getting bigger day by day. We need these facilities open; however, I hope the prisoners get a fair trial for credibility sake.

[Yar-El]

Did you people know some of the stimulus package will hit its peak in 2014?

 

Newsweek Article - Obama's Stimulus: A Colossal Waste?

 

Look at the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about $200 billion will be spent in 2011 or later -- after it would do the most good. For starters, there's $8 billion for high-speed rail. "Everyone is saying this is (for) high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas -- I don't know," says Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. Whatever's done, the design and construction will occupy many years. It's not a quick stimulus.

 

Then there's $20.8 billion for improved health information technology -- more electronic records and the like. Probably most people regard this as desirable, but here, too, changes occur slowly. The CBO expects only 3 percent of the money ($595 million) to be spent in fiscal 2009 and 2010. The peak year of projected spending is 2014 at $14.2 billion.

 

Big projects take time. They're included in the stimulus because Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are using the legislation to advance many political priorities instead of just spurring the economy. At his news conference, Obama argued (inaccurately) that the two goals don't conflict. Consider, he said, the retrofitting of federal buildings to make them more energy efficient. "We're creating jobs immediately," he said.

 

Yes -- but not many. The stimulus package includes $5.5 billion for overhauling federal buildings. The CBO estimates that only 23 percent of that would be spent in 2009 and 2010.

 

Worse, the economic impact of the stimulus is already smaller than advertised. The package includes an obscure tax provision: a "patch" for the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This protects many middle-class Americans against higher taxes and, on paper, adds $85 billion of "stimulus" in 2009 and 2010. One problem: "It's not stimulus," says Len Burman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "(Congress was) going to do it anyway. They do it every year." Strip out the AMT patch, and the stimulus drops to about $700 billion, with almost 30 percent spent after 2010.

 

The purpose of the stimulus is to minimize declines in one part of the economy from dragging other sectors down. The next big vulnerable sector seems to be state and local governments. Weakening tax payments create massive budget shortfalls. From now until the end of fiscal 2011, these may total $350 billion, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal advocacy group. Required to balance their budgets, states face huge pressures to cut spending and jobs or to raise taxes. All would worsen the recession and deepen pessimism.

My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs? People are out of jobs, so the weakening tax payments are going to happen. No job, no money, no buying luxury products.

 

Thanks for moving the thread Jae.

[Jae Onasi]

Political threads need to go in the Hot topics forum. Thanks.

[Yar-El]

Okay, this is my last thread in this section for the day. I want others to share their articles, so I'm going to hold back on adding more today. I think this article is a good read; thus, I wanted to share it with you. This is not a Obama bashing thread in anyway. I'm looking at where he currently measures up compared to other presidents. Things will change as we move forward, but it is interesting to see he is at the same level as George W. Bush.

 

Article - Obama's Approval Ratings in Context

 

Here's a fact that will probably shock you: Americans today have the same level of confidence in President Obama as they had in George W. Bush after his first month in office. According to Gallup, Obama’'s public approval rating currently stands at 63 percent, only a point above George W. Bush in late February 2001.

 

Few modern presidents have been greeted with such lofty expectations as Obama. That Obama now stands where Bush did eight years ago, on the eve of his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, serves as a reminder of how quickly the demands of the presidency can sober even the most talented politicians.

 

It's long been said that presidents are only as powerful as their public perception. Already, President Obama has lost a measure of his hopefulness at the moment he most requires it. The public seems to have noticed. And there are some in Washington who speculate that Obama's standing could still worsen.

 

"Obama is in a much weaker position than his poll numbers suggest and I think that the whole thing could collapse on him sooner rather than later," Doug Schoen, one of Bill Clinton's former pollsters, said.

 

That remains to be seen. But even at this early stage, Obama has already assumed a good deal of risk. With his first major legislative accomplishment, a $787 billion dollar economic stimulus bill, he has taken ownership of an economy that could quickly worsen.

 

President Obama Job Approval

RCP Average

Approve 63.2

Disapprove 28.6

Spread +34.6

 

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average

Approve 33.4

Disapprove 60.0

Spread -26.6

 

Direction of Country

RCP Average

Right Direction 32.3

Wrong Track 59.3

Spread -27.0

[mur'phon]

Yes, the stimulus contains a lot of things which give the wrong incentives, not work, and not work at the right time. However, with the current situation being as bad as it is, the economy is still likely to need the boost once it hits, even if it happens later. In adition, getting the damned thing through the house and senate meant that compromises had to be made.

 

My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs?

 

By runing a defecit.

[Yar-El]

By runing a defecit.

I'm completely ignorant at this point. How does running a defecit cure the economy?