BREAKING: S & P Downgrades Iowa’s IQ

[scandal 951]

All O and the Democrats have to do is ride it to the White House and a congressional majority on the backs of anger at the GOP alignment with the wing nut Tea Party.

Then we have a second term and we'll get some stuff done whether the RWN's like it or not.

A 9%+ unemployment rate, a sluggish GDP of ~1-2% best case, consumer confidence at record lows, anger at broken Washington politics all at record highs.

All of these factors suggest that any incumbent will have a very difficult time winning. It is, after all, the economy stupid. (Not calling you stupid, simply quoting the catchphrase).

I certainly don't blame all of these things on Obama. The reason the stimulus didn't work is it wasn't large enough, which was due to the needs for political compromise, certainly not his fault. The reason the stimulus worked at all (and it did) means we have an unemployment rate of 9% and not 12%. And that's to his credit.

However, Obama has done a lot of things wrong. He's a newbie with no executive office experience, and it is showing. He paid no attention to the Simpson-Bowles commission when it may have avoided the whole debt ceiling fiasco we went through and come out with a much better result. He spent all of his political capital on healthcare, won a Pyrrhic victory with legislation of debatable value and which left him with no base to build upon for other important work: immigration reform, energy policy, further stimulus and jobs programs, and,, yes, a serious approach to debt reform.

I will almost certainly vote for him again, I can't see anyone else in the offing I prefer. And I hope he gets a second term. But from the vantage of 2011 (2012 is light years away) that looks like a long shot, hardly a sure thing.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Could be.

But if it's Bachmann in the White House, the construction crews will be right behind the moving truck.

So they can build a rubber room.

bachmann isn't winning the nomination. she's a course version of palin..all one liner sound bites & no meat, no plan.

He is. And unless he drops this no confrontation attitude, he'll surely lose. He needs to get out and fight for his agenda. The people are largely on his side on the various issues. He just needs to figure out a way - or grow the balls - to carry his message which he has been very ineffective of doing.

he hasn't exactly been sitting in the corner singing 'kumbaya my lord'. as many people that on his side on some issues, there are many that are 180 out on those issues. the people are tired of the dems 'those evil bastards' rhetoric & childish insults...if obama rejoins that strategy...he IS toast....he needs to untie not divide.

Edited August 14, 2011 by SMOKE

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The reason the stimulus didn't work is it wasn't large enough, which was due to the needs for political compromise, certainly not his fault. The reason the stimulus worked at all (and it did) means we have an unemployment rate of 9% and not 12%. And that's to his credit.

However, Obama has done a lot of things wrong. He's a newbie with no executive office experience, and it is showing. He paid no attention to the Simpson-Bowles commission when it may have avoided the whole debt ceiling fiasco we went through and come out with a much better result. He spent all of his political capital on healthcare, won a Pyrrhic victory with legislation of debatable value and which left him with no base to build upon for other important work: immigration reform, energy policy, further stimulus and jobs programs, and, yes, a serious approach to debt reform.

I will almost certainly vote for him again, I can't see anyone else in the offing I prefer. And I hope he gets a second term. But from the vantage of 2011 (2012 is light years away) that looks like a long shot, hardly a sure thing.

It's all about the message and all about priorities. Yes, polls suggest people want to see compromise to move things along. But they also want a strong President that will fight for what is right and in the country's interest. The people back Obama on issue after issue when it comes to jobs, education and budgets. But he's not capitalizing on that fact. He's still looking at the GOP as a party to work with when they have made clear time and again that they will not. Under any circumstances.

[scandal 951]

bachmann isn't winning the nomination. she's a course version of palin..all one liner sound bites & no meat, no plan.

I think you're right about that. We're talking about an Iowa straw poll, at this point. Let's even say she goes on to actually win Iowa in January. That's a far cry from taking the nomination. Her politics will play to the tea party but that's not a sure win, or even an easy win, in large states like NY, PA, FL, CA etc. She doesn't need to win primaries in all of those of course, but if she can't win any of those, and all she gets is Tea Party hinterland, she isn't going to be the nominee.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

he hasn't exactly been sitting in the corner singing 'kumbaya my lord'. as many people that on his side on some issues, there are many that are 180 out on those issues. the people are tired of the dems 'those evil bastards' rhetoric & childish insults...if obama rejoins that strategy...he IS toast....he needs to untie not divide.

He's been doing too much kumbaya. Look at the deficit issue - people back him by 2/3 that it will take revenues and spending cuts to effectively address the issue. Look at jobs - people are two-to-one or better in favor of stimulating job creation. By solid majorities, people will back job creation over deficit reduction. People are solidly behind him on revenues. They're behind him on social programs. On education. On issue after issue. Don't confuse volume with quantity. On the pressing issues of today, Obama enjoys broad public support. He fails to translate that into the pressure that's needed to get the required legislative action. That's his problem. And unless he figures out a way to change that, he'll be toast unless the GOP nominates an unelectable candidate like Michele Bachmann.

[scandal 951]

It's all about the message and all about priorities. Yes, polls suggest people want to see compromise to move things along. But they also want a strong President that will fight for what is right and in the country's interest. The people back Obama on issue after issue when it comes to jobs, education and budgets. But he's not capitalizing on that fact. He's still looking at the GOP as a party to work with when they have made clear time and again that they will not. Under any circumstances.

Well, we have a system of government. It requires Congress to create legislation and the President to sign it. Without Congress, we won't have any bills for him to put in motion. He can act through Executive Decrees to a limited extent, but frankly I think he ought not to. There's been way too much of that in recent years in attempts to work around Congressional gridlock. I do agree that Congress is a much bigger problem than the Administration. But no President can ignore them entirely- reaching out to them is an essential part of his job. I think the problem is that he flat-out sucks at it. He is not a back room dealer, and when he sends out emissaries to the Hill they are no better. Clinton used to get deals done with Gingrich. Reagan did with Tip O'Neil. Obama could barely work with Pelosi, let alone Boehner.

On the pressing issues of today, Obama enjoys broad public support. He fails to translate that into the pressure that's needed to get the required legislative action. That's his problem.

Right. Precisely. Exactly. We agree, that's his core crux problem.

[SMOKE 1,426]

He's been doing too much kumbaya. Look at the deficit issue - people back him by 2/3 that it will take revenues and spending cuts to effectively address the issue. Look at jobs - people are two-to-one or better in favor of stimulating job creation. By solid majorities, people will back job creation over deficit reduction. People are solidly behind him on revenues. They're behind him on social programs. On education. On issue after issue. Don't confuse volume with quantity. On the pressing issues of today, Obama enjoys broad public support. He fails to translate that into the pressure that's needed to get the required legislative action. That's his problem. And unless he figures out a way to change that, he'll be toast unless the GOP nominates an unelectable candidate like Michele Bachmann.

dude, you're living in a fantasy land. he followed his senatorial voting pattern on the debt/deficit issue. he basically voted 'present' through the whole thing. his stimulas was a failure. in 2008 he had the advantage of most people being po'd at bush & republicans in general. he had no record, but some really well written speaches. he beat 'bush's lapdog' . now he has a record, and its not a favorable one + the economy is in worse shape than when he took office.

Nana nana na na...hey hey hey...

Edited August 14, 2011 by SMOKE

[SMOKE 1,426]

he beat 'bush's lapdog' . now he has a record, and its not a favorable one + the economy is in worse shape than when he took office.

correction...it was 'bush's poodle'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

dude, you're living in a fantasy land. he followed his senatorial voting pattern on the debt/deficit issue. he basically voted 'present' through the whole thing. his stimulas was a failure. in 2008 he had the advantage of most people being po'd at bush & republicans in general. he had no record, but some really well written speaches. he beat 'bush's lapdog' . now he has a record, and its not a favorable one + the economy is in worse shape than when he took office.

Nana nana na na...hey hey hey...

The bold part would suggest that it is you who lives in a fantasy land. There isn't any serious economic expert out there that would deny the fact that from an economic growth and unemployment point of view, we'd be far worse off today than we are had it not been for the stimulus measures. They were far too small, sure. But they were much better than nothing at all. Bottom line, the economy is not in worse shape today than it was when he took office. We were shedding 700M jobs a month when he took office. Last time I checked, we had 15 consecutive months of job growth even with hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs being slashed. How is a growing job number worse than a rapidly declining job number? The stock market has recovered tremendously even after the slide of the last couple of weeks. Companies turn record profits rather than posting losses. How is all that worse than what it was? You think corporate losses are better than profits? You think a downward trending stock market is better than an upward trending stock market? You think massively shedding jobs is better than adding them? Some fantasy land you live in...

[natty bumppo 297]

The bold part would suggest that it is you who lives in a fantasy land. There isn't any serious economic expert out there that would deny the fact that from an economic growth and unemployment point of view, we'd be far worse off today than we are had it not been for the stimulus measures. They were far too small, sure. But they were much better than nothing at all. Bottom line, the economy is not in worse shape today than it was when he took office. We were shedding 700M jobs a month when he took office.

The US was shedding 700M (700 million)/ month?

the population of the US isn't that large ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The US was shedding 700M (700 million)/ month?

the population of the US isn't that large ...

700M = 700,000

700MM = 700,000,000

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The US was shedding 700M (700 million)/ month?

the population of the US isn't that large ...

M is the Roman Numeral for 1000

None of that matters. Oabma will not be re-elected. The reason will have nothing to do with "facts"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The bold part would suggest that it is you who lives in a fantasy land. There isn't any serious economic expert out there that would deny the fact that from an economic growth and unemployment point of view, we'd be far worse off today than we are had it not been for the stimulus measures. They were far too small, sure. But they were much better than nothing at all. Bottom line, the economy is not in worse shape today than it was when he took office. We were shedding 700M jobs a month when he took office. Last time I checked, we had 15 consecutive months of job growth even with hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs being slashed. How is a growing job number worse than a rapidly declining job number? The stock market has recovered tremendously even after the slide of the last couple of weeks. Companies turn record profits rather than posting losses. How is all that worse than what it was? You think corporate losses are better than profits? You think a downward trending stock market is better than an upward trending stock market? You think massively shedding jobs is better than adding them? Some fantasy land you live in...

Reality...voters are not economic experts. Carter was a one term President. Do you think the voters will consider President Downgrade better than Carter?

[natty bumppo 297]

700M = 700,000

700MM = 700,000,000

monetary circles (accounting) is one way to view it the number posted. there is also another ... and the other way is also being used in monetary circles ...

700k = 700,000

700M = 700,000,000

also ..

700M = dell inspiron

[SMOKE 1,426]

The bold part would suggest that it is you who lives in a fantasy land.

*yawn* we'll see how this plays out soon enough.