Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

So... what exactly has Obama been doing 'wrong' or not right watch

    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I never did come to understand what the problem is with sending troops to a war that's already happening with the hopes of ending it sooner...
    Because it still wont magically resolve the problems in Afghanistan, it'll just cost a lot more taxpayers money at a time of massive government deficit, and it'll put more Americans lives at risk.

    Personally I think they should commit less and less troops, in less and less dangerous areas - and gradually phase themselves out alltogether.

    I admit Bush caused the problems to begin with, I don't bum the republican party or justify their actions for the sake of it. But I do prefer most republicans to Obama.
    Offline

    2
    By making too many promises but failing to stick to them!
    He promised the world to withdraw his troops but broke it by sending 33000 troops to Afghanistan.


    (Original post by Badrkahandaman)
    Well I don't really mind him but as a Palestinian I'm a little aggrieved that he's put progressively less and less pressure on Netunyahu regarding the West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem, to the point where he seems almost indifferent.

    Do you think that a child would desobey his mother who is his only feeder? No.
    We are told that America is the most powerful, but it's in fact Israel that has all the power and is controlling the world; US is only one of its servants; so Obama will never put any pressure on Netanyahu as he knows he country will be .....
    But instead he will try and help the Israelis to kill as many Palestinian children as they want
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I actually think its the only possible to time for the US to try and get that kind of reform through. Tough times concentrate people's minds on what is actually important, and are generally the only times in which politicians can achieve any sort of radical change. The most obvious example is how Labour won a landslide on a platform to create the welfare state, even though Britain had just come out of WWII with a debt of 200% of GDP. Another example would be the rise and increasingly radicalism of Thatcher made possible by the Winter of Discontent and the 70s oil price shocks.

    I see exactly what you are saying and you are right, but I think most Republicans use the cost of Obama's bill as an excuse, the actual reasons for opposition are ideological. Its a bit hypocritical for Republicans who backed completely unfunded tax-cuts landing the U.S. with an enormous debt even in a boom (the U.S. national debt as a % of GDP is far worse than our national debt for the Brown-bashers) to oppose Obama's plans on a cost basis.
    Thatchers 1979 manifesto wasn't actually that extreme, people were horrified when they actually realised what she stood for, only the Falklands war got her elected again. The 1970 Heath manifesto was far more Thatcherite. I don't really know enough about the post-WW2 era to comment on that.

    I know the republicans have lost their way and have endorsed big spending as much as democrats, but hopefully they've actually learnt their lessons now, we'll see when the next republican president comes in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Because it still wont magically resolve the problems in Afghanistan, it'll just cost a lot more taxpayers money at a time of massive government deficit, and it'll put more Americans lives at risk.

    Personally I think they should commit less and less troops, in less and less dangerous areas - and gradually phase themselves out alltogether.

    I admit Bush caused the problems to begin with, I don't bum the republican party or justify their actions for the sake of it. But I do prefer most republicans to Obama.
    You don't know that sending more troops to Afghanistan won't solve anything. A couple years ago, I was positive that the surge in Iraq wasn't going to solve anything, but as it turns out, it resulted in a drastic decline in insurgent attacks.

    In addition, if this has a similar outcome, then it will most likely save us money as it will end sooner.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)
    He promised the world to withdraw his troops but broke it by sending 33000 troops to Afghanistan.
    He never promised to withdraw from Afghanistan.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I hear he has increased the US deficit by more in one year than Bush did in his entire administration. (Not convinced by that though, because Bush spent far too much as well.)
    Not quite - bush managed just over $4,000,000,000,000.00 of extra debt, obama's racking up a "mere" £1,750,000,000.00 in his first year...

    When are the socialist governments of britain and the US going to wake up and realise that we can't keep spending money like this. Gordon brown is even more disillusioned about spending. Labour have run up about £500 billion extra government debt, and hundreds of billions more on the pension defeceit. He also sold off 60% of the UK's gold reserves just to keep funding his spending binge and put extra taxes on pensions taking hundreds of billions more from the retired. One analyst's piece put the total at ~£110 billion average overspend for every year in power.

    UK Economic cycle:

    Labour Elected>Fake boom as government runs up debt, artificially and temporarily boosting GDP>Government runs out of money, or some external crisis causes us to have to dig into our (now raided) reserves>CRISIS!!!>More right-wing government elected>Budgets go down and we live within our means>Public outcry for some time over lost services>Businesses start to re-invest in the UK since we don't look like going bankrupt next week anymore>GDP Increases>Public spending increases in line with GDP>Public wealth increases>People forget what happened with the last socialist government>Labour and other left-wing parties promise extra spending on various projects>Left-wing party gets elected>Back to the start again.

    The length of this cycle I predict to be ~30 years...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    ...
    You entire argument falls down on the basis that the strongly Republican George Bush built up a much worse debt and deficit than Labour did. The U.S. national debt has been some way ahead of the U.K national debt for some years now, and it remains the case.

    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Labour Elected>Fake boom as government runs up debt, artificially and temporarily boosting GDP>Government runs out of money, or some external crisis causes us to have to dig into our (now raided) reserves>CRISIS!!!>More right-wing government elected>Budgets go down and we live within our means>Public outcry for some time over lost services>Businesses start to re-invest in the UK since we don't look like going bankrupt next week anymore>GDP Increases>Public spending increases in line with GDP>Public wealth increases>People forget what happened with the last socialist government>Labour and other left-wing parties promise extra spending on various projects>Left-wing party gets elected>Back to the start again.
    National debt in 1997 after 10 years of Thatcher and 8 years of Major? 53% of GDP
    National debt in 2008 after 11 years of New Labour? 47% of GDP.
    The facts don't square with your narrative.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    He never promised to withdraw from Afghanistan.
    Yeah he didn't but he did for Iraq.
    Sorry I was meant to include that in my post
    And for me there is no difference between the two; sending troops would mean that he clearly is not improving the security of the world .
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Thatchers 1979 manifesto wasn't actually that extreme, people were horrified when they actually realised what she stood for, only the Falklands war got her elected again. The 1970 Heath manifesto was far more Thatcherite. I don't really know enough about the post-WW2 era to comment on that.
    Perhaps, but I think it was the 1970s oil shocks that really allowed Thatcher to push forward with her agenda. No matter how radical a leader is, if public support really swings against them they can't do anything, as Mrs. T found with the poll-tax. I think I'll stop dragging this thread off-topic now though :blush:
    Offline

    0
    1) Healthcare, it's not right for America and they didn't want it. The system which he has proposed would see healthcare plans taxed as income which = ********. Healthcare =!= a human right, I'm a smoker, I wouldn't want tax money going to help me if i ever got anything because of my own actions and simmilarly i wouldn't want to pend tax money to help any others who generally get ill because of their own stupidity (see: obesity)
    2) He banned flavored cigarettes.
    3) He hasn't capped the salaries of bailed out CEO's as he's promised
    4) He's been a complete pussy on Iran and done nothing to better the situation
    5) He just generally has been like a pervy old man who's finally gotten laid, all hard talk but quite floppy in reality.
    6) He's gone on about peace and change and yet he's promoted **** all in terms of that
    7) He promised a shorter war in iraq and afghanistan and is instead sending more troops
    8) He made people believe he was different when in fact he's not and he can't keep up the lie - people don't like knowing they've been lied to.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by jacketpotato)


    National debt in 1997 after 10 years of Thatcher and 8 years of Major? 53% of GDP
    National debt in 2008 after 11 years of New Labour? 47% of GDP.
    The facts don't square with your narrative.

    Debt as a % of GDP is a poor measure, let's talk about ACTUAL figured.

    The UK GDP doubled from '97 to now.

    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Not quite - bush managed just over $4,000,000,000,000.00 of extra debt, obama's racking up a "mere" £1,750,000,000.00 in his first year...

    Don't mix currencies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)
    Yeah he didn't but he did for Iraq.
    Sorry I was meant to include that in my post
    And for me there is no difference between the two; sending troops would mean that he clearly is not improving the security of the world .
    There is a difference. Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different places, different wars, different motives, different completely. He promised to remove troops from Iraq, because people wanted troops removed from Iraq. Afghanistan he did not promise, because most people actually agree that it's justified.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    One of the main problems many americans have with obama is his public health bill.
    Rich people dont want it because they already have good healthcare and dont want to work out for the poor.
    The poor are disapointed with the minimal service public health provides.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Debt as a % of GDP is a poor measure, let's talk about ACTUAL figured.

    The UK GDP doubled from '97 to now.
    I really don't see how debt as a % of GDP is a poor measure. It takes the bare figures and tells you what they actually mean in the context of the economy you are looking at.

    Bare figures don't take account of inflation. When Thatcher got elected as an MP in 1959 the average house price was £2,750. Nor do they take account of the fact that a larger economy can service more debt - the U.S. obviously has a much smaller national debt than Japan, but Japan's debt problems are much more serious as its national debt is roughly twice the size of its economy. Similarly, a £1000 credit card bill could be very serious for some people, but is absolute peanuts to a high earner.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    A lot of Americans don't like him because of his healthcare proposals.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/i...-200908141981/

    Most attacks against Obama are based on pure partisanism rather than any objections to his policies. He's actually quite similar to Bush in many ways. Oh, and yeah, he's black.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I really don't see how debt as a % of GDP is a poor measure. It takes the bare figures and tells you what they actually mean in the context of the economy you are looking at.
    Because 50% of 2.6 trillion is a ******** more than 50% of 1.3 trillion:rolleyes:

    If labor hadnt wiped their ass with the economy and brought up the debt then had it been left at the level it ought to be around...oh...idk..20-30% now as opposed to staying at a simmilar level indicating that it's increased essentially in rate with the economy.:rolleyes:

    Example:

    You have $3. You owe me $1. 2 weeks later you borrow $1 more, you now have $6, you owe me $2. It may mean the same %-wise but it's still more money indicating a deficit.

    Bare figures don't take account of inflation. When Thatcher got elected as an MP in 1959 the average house price was £2,750.
    Yes... cause pre-decimalization currency is the best thing to compare modern prices with.......:rolleyes: You know.... seeing as the pound retained it's value post-decimalization perfectly and all
    Nor do they take account of the fact that a larger economy can service more debt - the U.S. obviously has a much smaller national debt than Japan, but Japan's debt problems are much more serious as its national debt is roughly twice the size of its economy. Similarly, a £1000 credit card bill could be very serious for some people, but is absolute peanuts to a high earner.
    Yes, but economies shouldn't be running on the maximum they can safely run in terms of debt, ideally economies should be broken even and resort to debt when it's needed as opposed to using it as a regular part of the economy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is the insane republicans who are being deliberately extremely obtuse and partisan and the fact that almost all republicans fall into this insane category.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Don't mix currencies.
    Was a typo
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Was a typo
    O

    KK
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Because 50% of 2.6 trillion is a ******** more than 50% of 1.3 trillion:rolleyes:

    If labor hadnt wiped their ass with the economy and brought up the debt then had it been left at the level it ought to be around...oh...idk..20-30% now as opposed to staying at a simmilar level indicating that it's increased essentially in rate with the economy.:rolleyes:
    That's wrong. Reductions in national debt don't happen automatically. Debt is dynamic: it doesn't just sit there on a balance sheet. When government bonds mature, they have to paid - non-payment simply is not an option unless you want to cause mass panic. If a budget is perfectly balanced with government income exactly equalling public spending, the government can only pay off its bonds by re-financing its debt with new bonds. As there has been inflation since the original bonds were issued, the bare amount of debt will have increased even though our government has spent exactly what it has earned.

    In other words: if you want to keep the debt the same as it is in absolute terms, you have to run a pretty enormous surplus. If you run a balanced budget, then debt as a % of GDP will remain roughly the same.
    Example:

    You have $3. You owe me $1. 2 weeks later you borrow $1 more, you now have $6, you owe me $2. It may mean the same %-wise but it's still more money indicating a deficit.
    But my ability to pay off that debt has also doubled. Remember that we are talking about economies here. GDP measures output. If an economy's GDP doubles, it output doubles, it has twice as much money to pay off that wealth.

    A more accurate example would be to compare debt to earnings. Let's say that I have a disposable income of £1,000 per year and have a debt of £2,000. That debt is going to be extremely difficult for me to pay off, and I am probably bankrupt. If my disposable income of £4,000 per year, that debt is considerably easier to pay off. If my disposable income is £200,000 per year, the debt is meaningless.

    Which is why investors and banks use leveraging ratios rather than simple debt numbers. If I say a business has a debt of £20 million, that is completely meaningless: it would be huge for a small business but would be trivial for a FTSE-250 company.
    Are you really saying that debt is more of a problem for the UK than it is for African governments completely crippled by debt?

    Yes... cause pre-decimalization currency is the best thing to compare modern prices with.......:rolleyes: You know.... seeing as the pound retained it's value post-decimalization perfectly and all
    That's not really the point. The point is that inflation exists and is extremely significant over any meaningful period of time.

    Yes, but economies shouldn't be running on the maximum they can safely run in terms of debt, ideally economies should be broken even and resort to debt when it's needed as opposed to using it as a regular part of the economy.
    This is an entirely different point. I don't think it can be squared with your original right-wing / left-wing analysis since consumer debt is as important as public debt, and as right-wing parties tend not to want to control how much debt people take on and under what terms. I don't think many economists or businessmen would agree, but I've probably dragged this off-topic enough...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.