Did Obama jump the shark??

racerdave600 wrote: A lot of you weren't born when Carter was president, but he is like Carter on steroids.

I've been saying this since he took office. When we choose to forget history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Finger pointing. The best game in town.

racerdave600 wrote: A lot of you weren't born when Carter was president, but he is like Carter on steroids.

racerdave600 wrote: A lot of you weren't born when Carter was president, but he is like Carter on steroids.

I was, barely. 1 when he took office, 5 when he left.

I remember my folks getting a new home loan with 22% interest. But really what I have noticed is in the last 2-3 years and most likely before Bush took office, is the dollar doesn't even come close to buying what it used to buy. Just look at the government program limits to qualify for example. A family of three with one working adult for $11/hr doesn't qualify for food stamps, but on that money, you don't do E36 M3. You drive something that ranks below a Challenge car in every aspect. Etcera, etc, etc. Just a few years ago, that was fairly decent "livable" wage even for a family of three. The raise in minimum wage is probably the biggest culprit, IMO. That maybe a Bush era deal, but a Democrat stronghold issue that only hurts the poor.

Brian

racerdave600 wrote:

Big ego wrote: I think Obama has a leadership issue. While the man has a ton on his plate, quite frankly more than any other president in recent history, He has let others define his presidency.

That's not really true. There are plenty of Presidents with a lot more on their plates than him. He's yet to make any seriously tough decisions, only policy moves. Getting his agenda through has pretty much been his only concern. I've seen very little from him other than passing his projects and paying off his friends. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but let's look at his first days in office. People forget that he also inherited a recession from Clinton. Clinton had the dot com boom bust in his next to last year, a high he had been riding through most of his presidency. The economy was heading south, and then 911 happened. Along with 911 came the almost total collapse of the airline industry. He kept the economy going, got it adding jobs, and even tried to address the housing bubble issue before it collapsed. So on the economy, Bush succeeded far better in his early years that Obama has. Of course then he started a war.... What really screwed up Bush though is letting the democrat controlled congress do pretty much what they wanted when they were elected a few years back. He should have vetoed a huge chunk of the crap they pushed and the economy would have held on a bit longer. Now let's look at Obama...He basically has done the opposite of what is needed to jump start the economy. He's spent HUGE sums of money, mainly payouts to unions and bank officials (most that were large contributors to his election), and created equally large government programs that will be impossible to sustain. Everything he's done will hit people in their wallets, and truthfully, are not going to see anything of substance in return compared to dollars spent. Prices are going up, taxes are going up (locally especially as municipalities have to make up for lost revenues), and the dollar is being devalued due to massive printings. He's attacked entire industries and put some close to collapse. (I work in the energy industry, the rest of world is laughing their asses off at us.) Blames others for everything anytime a mic is front of him, and generated a complete lack of faith in him by businesses and general uneasiness throughout the country. A lot of you weren't born when Carter was president, but he is like Carter on steroids.

Agreed. And you didn't even mention the inevitable hyper-inflation that's in our future.

Why is hyper-inflation inevitable?

Hyperinflation

Inevtiable or far fetched hyperbole? Based partially on the fact that the dude starts out by saying we are in a global depression, I'll guess the latter.

At least the author has impeccable credentials -

"Gonzalo Lira is an American novelist and filmmaker born in Burbank, California…Lira wrote, produced and directed a comic short film, So Kinky."

Interesting read, BR.

Yeah, and you can debunk anything if you want to.
It was the first article explaining it that I could find, but it's pretty clear to me that nothing I post will impress you. Do your own research like I did, and make up your own mind. I don't really care.

I've looked into it. I honestly think hyperinflation is an extremely remote possibility. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

You may be right.

However, I'm pretty sure that there have been plenty of people who said the same thing in every country that later experienced hyperinflation.

Just a thought...

True, but my contention was with the inevitable comment.

Even what we had under Carter wasn't close to hyperinflation.

Okay, inevitable was maybe overstating it, but I do think it's likely.

I can assure you the damage done by Carter was plenty bad. I can remember 17% auto loan rates being average, and if you had perfect credit, maybe get it down to 11% or 12%, to put it into GRM frame. And inflation was rampant as well. It was not a good time.

RD600:

You're right, the Carter era was bad.

It was NOT hyperinflation.

Inflation was running >20% during Jimmah, the 2nd worst President we ever had, but I'm sure a really nice guy. Good with a hammer and nails, huh?

And I think we are in the early stages of Great Depression 2.0. Probably at the end of the beginning. It is a symantics game that this point. Oh, we only had x quarters of negative growth, then we cooked the books and had positive growth for a quarter, then y quarters of negative growth, so, see, no depression which is z quarters in a row of negative growth, right?

The probability of the US having hyperinflation is not zero. Today, a dollar is worth something like 1 to 4 cents in 1930's money. That's inflation. If that hit not over 100 years but over 1 year, or over 1 week, that would be like hyperinflation. When the Fed, a collection of private bankers that control the money supply, is doubling the amount of "money" out here in the world, that's going to trickle down to us. Unfortunately, it won't trickle down to our wages, as they are (mostly) linked to cooked numbers. So, everything will cost more, we'll get the same amount for our labor, and we'll all just have to down-grade our food purchases from steak to hamburger to dog food. We should call it the Obama Diet, although he just does what the teleprompter tells him to.

I thought the Lira blog was an interesting read. I don't care if he's not an economist. Actually, I think you get better economics analysis today from people who aren't economists. Look at what the economists have brought us.

I suppose that's why you see older people protesting like hell against all that is going on. We've seen it before. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now. We know the outcome. And no matter what the media says, the outcome won't be any different than all the other outcomes that have been before throughout history.

None of this is new in any way, shape or form. They are just throwing a new label on it and trying to tell you how gummy bears and rainbows will magically appear.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think government's role is simply not to screw things up too badly. Right now we're living the very definition of that.

Inflation and hyperinflation are by definition completely different.

Inflation is when there are too many dollars around and prices rise.

Hyperinflation is a complete loss of confidence in the monetary system which produces panic and collapse.

Hyperinflation is not inflation on steroids. It is fundamentally different.

racerdave600 wrote: That's not really true. There are plenty of Presidents with a lot more on their plates than him.

really?

Sorry kids, I don't believe it and quite frankly you won't produce any numbers to prove it. So lets leave it at that..

The Hyper inflation double dip idiocy is done. I'm quite frankly getting tired of hearing it. Get back to work... My company is hiring.

racerdave600 wrote: I suppose that's why you see older people protesting like hell against all that is going on. We've seen it before. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

You've seen it all before? Come on..

Deficits this high with unemployment rates this big... You aren't old enough to have been alive in the 30's and remember it.

Do not talk down to me. I am the economic engine that will propel this country forward. I can count about $5M I returned back to this economy in the past 6 months. I fail to believe just because you are older you know better.

oldsaw wrote: Never said either of your options. She's NOT better than you. You're both "real Americans".

I take absolute offence at the populist rhetoric that she and other wannabe's have spewed about "real americans." It seems to be a tactic of the right to align themselves with "real americans" and portray everyone else as a SOCIALIST MARIXIST ILLEGAL ALIEN LOVING LIBERAL ELITE THAT LOOKS DOWN UPON MY WAY OF LIFE..

I've built a career around being able to work with people from all backgrounds and listening to all. She and her idiocy can shove it.

Wow, you do have a big ego.

bravenrace wrote: Wow, you do have a big ego.

It would b a problem if I didn't have the performance to back it up.

Now as the old saying goes.. "In god we trust, all others bring data"

Bring some data or take your conjecture elsewhere.

Nice. This reiterates why I don't usually do political threads, the hard nosed stand your ground take no prisoners attitude just isn't seen when dicussing Yugos.

Dan