In an attempt to clean another forum.

freeman3 wrote:Well, presumably Republicans are going to win seats because of unhappiness with Obama...but why? I think back in 2008 or even in 2012 most Americans would have, if asked would you be happy with Obama if in 2014 the situation was as it is, would have been thrilled-- yet they are dissatisfied. Our economy is growing at the kind of rate that creates jobs and we're seeing unemployment go down. Deficits are going down. If there is still too much income inequality, too much money to people in finance and corporate management instead of workers, well, I think we can be very confident that it would be worse under Republican leadership. As far as foreign policy goes we have reduced foreign involvement without any significant harm to either our national security or economic interests--at least not yet. And most likely the only way to have stabilized the situation in Iraq was with a lot more dead American soldiers--no thank you. I guess the Benghazi, IRS scandals, et al. (None of which reached the president) have done the job. But it is interesting to note the objective numbers.

1. Our economy is growing.

Yes it is. It is growing more consistently than other economies. It is growing very slowly, however. Typically, the bigger the downturn, the more rapid the recovery. That has not been the case.

2. Unemployment is going down.

Yes it is. However, labor participation is at 35-year lows. Many people have given up. Others have taken part-time work or lesser-paying work.

3. Deficits are going down.

Yes, they are. However, this is a bit like taking the Maserati back and coming home with a BMW. In other words, they are still very high and portend problems when interest rates finally go back to "normal."

4. Income inequality is still a problem.

Maybe, but the problem is worse under President Obama. His policies have not helped those who need it.

Personally, I see this as a tilting at windmills issue: there will always be income inequality, except under idyllic socialism.

4. We see less foreign adventurism.

Yes we do. However, we also see our enemies and potential enemies running wild. The US looks pretty hapless across the Middle East and in Ukraine and China.

Back to the Recovery: it is one that most people, save the upper classes, don't "feel." Housing values have stabilized, but they've only increased in DC and selected areas. Jobs are scarce. Well, at least good jobs are. Is it better than it was? Sure--and the lifeboats were better than going down with the Titanic. That didn't make the lifeboats a nice place to be.

Fate and Freeman agree on almost everything. Look at how many times he said yes. Is that a pig I see out my window . . .

geojanes wrote:Fate and Freeman agree on almost everything. Look at how many times he said yes. Is that a pig I see out my window . . .

That pig is nearly obscured by a gigantic asterisk.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Fate and Freeman agree on almost everything. Look at how many times he said yes. Is that a pig I see out my window . . .

That pig is nearly obscured by a gigantic asterisk.

But since when have the details mattered? I mean, just look at your argument on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The details didn't matter to your argument one bit. Not one itsy-bitsy bit. ,

Myself, I was wondering what the asterisk was...

Fact is that nobody has really recovered from 2008 yet. The exact same caveats that Steve just listed about the American recovery apply to our recovery in the UK, except our growth rate has been lower. In Europe the situation is far, far worse, with unemployment rates up at sky high levels and deflation on the horizon. The last 6 years have been really tough for most governments and I'm not convinced that a McCain or Romney administration would have been much more effective. The Presidency that Obama inherited was probably a poisoned chalice. Yes, he's been a big disappointment, but so would anybody else have been in all probability.

Sassenach wrote:Fact is that nobody has really recovered from 2008 yet. The exact same caveats that Steve just listed about the American recovery apply to our recovery in the UK, except our growth rate has been lower. In Europe the situation is far, far worse, with unemployment rates up at sky high levels and deflation on the horizon. The last 6 years have been really tough for most governments and I'm not convinced that a McCain or Romney administration would have been much more effective. The Presidency that Obama inherited was probably a poisoned chalice. Yes, he's been a big disappointment, but so would anybody else have been in all probability.

Maybe, but we'll never know.

What we do know is that his foreign policy has led to worse conditions in many areas of the world and it's hard to point to an improvement in that area.

With regard to the economy, with the EPA and other executive agencies issuing edicts and the President issuing regulations designed to undermine the coal industry, with the additional costs of Obamacare, and other issues, the only people to really do well are . . . corporations and fatcats. Thank you, Mr. President, for fighting for the middle class! Now, if you'll stop, maybe we can get somewhere.

What you probably have to accept Steve is that for good or ill there's a large and growing constituency that places a higher value on tackling climate change than it does on lower energy prices. Some of us may think this attitude is naive but it's the way of the future I think. It just happens that the green tendency is more prevalent in the Democratic Party right now, but over time the same will apply to Republicans too because it's the dominant attitude of the younger voter. Obama had no choice on this really, although since he hasn't stood in the way of fracking he's arguably done his bit for keeping down energy prices in any case.

I'm sort of with you on his foreign policy, but again I think he was dealt a very poor hand. It's not immediately opbvious what the appropriate response to the arab spring should have been. the whole thing came out of nowhere and created massive headaches for western leaders because it upset the delicate balance in the Middle East at a time when a lot of the old dictators were starting to come in from the cold. We could run with the zeitgeist and try to be seen as on the side of the arab peoples (most of whom had risen up demanding democracy) and risk the inevitable ascendancy of the islamist factions in their wake or we could stay out of it and run the risk that it would alienate the arab people and further diminish our influence in the region. Either option was a bad one so it's hardly surprising that a lot of mistakes have been made.

Sassenach wrote:What you probably have to accept Steve is that for good or ill there's a large and growing constituency that places a higher value on tackling climate change than it does on lower energy prices. Some of us may think this attitude is naive but it's the way of the future I think. It just happens that the green tendency is more prevalent in the Democratic Party right now, but over time the same will apply to Republicans too because it's the dominant attitude of the younger voter.

Time will tell. I think it's a bit of a fad and the hype will fade as reality sets in.

Obama had no choice on this really, although since he hasn't stood in the way of fracking he's arguably done his bit for keeping down energy prices in any case.

Can't really agree.

President Obama would veto two House Republican-backed bills the White House argues would cater to oil companies and undercut land preservation, in part by handcuffing Washington’s power to regulate hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

The two measures are unlikely to reach Obama’s desk because of Senate Democratic opposition, but the Office of Management and Budget outlined the administration’s objections Tuesday in anticipation of House consideration.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... z3H5XLQcn5

I think if he could figure out a way he would executive order fracking out of existence.

I'm sort of with you on his foreign policy, but again I think he was dealt a very poor hand. It's not immediately opbvious what the appropriate response to the arab spring should have been. the whole thing came out of nowhere and created massive headaches for western leaders because it upset the delicate balance in the Middle East at a time when a lot of the old dictators were starting to come in from the cold.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say you're right. Even then, what he has done has not helped and, I would argue, it's made it worse.

We could run with the zeitgeist and try to be seen as on the side of the arab peoples (most of whom had risen up demanding democracy) and risk the inevitable ascendancy of the islamist factions in their wake or we could stay out of it and run the risk that it would alienate the arab people and further diminish our influence in the region. Either option was a bad one so it's hardly surprising that a lot of mistakes have been made.

One thing is clear: merely sticking a thumb on the scale was not the right thing to do. He preached against Assad and Mubarak, but did little else. That led to a 3-sided civil war in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. In Libya, we bombed the dictator, permitting Islamists to take the upper hand.

Stumbling into these situations was, imnsho, worse than staying out. There was no vision, no policy, and no clue on what the consequences would be.

Time will tell. I think it's a bit of a fad and the hype will fade as reality sets in.

I'm not so sure. What I think will ultimately happen is that we'll crack the technical problems associated with some form of radical technology that will render our reliance on hydrocarbons redundant. Most probably this will be some form of fusion power (there's an interesting thread on this that Neal posted in the science forum as it happens). In the meantime though it seems almost inconceivable to me that the coming generation will want to turn its back on environmentalism.

One thing is clear: merely sticking a thumb on the scale was not the right thing to do. He preached against Assad and Mubarak, but did little else. That led to a 3-sided civil war in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. In Libya, we bombed the dictator, permitting Islamists to take the upper hand.

Stumbling into these situations was, imnsho, worse than staying out. There was no vision, no policy, and no clue on what the consequences would be.

Doing nothing is still a positive choice that involves a leap into the dark with no clear idea of the consequences. You're wanting to have your cake and eat it here. In Libya we intervened and it turned out badly. In Syria we did nothing and it turned out badly. In Egypt we also did nothing and it only resolved itself because there was a coup which has left us once again tacitly endorsing a military dictator. What should have been donein each of those situations ? Had there been no Libyan intervention then Gaddafi would have no doubt slaughtered thousands of people and we'd have been left with a situation where a man who we'd recently begun doing business with again was an international pariah, leaving all the noble sentiments about spreading democracy to the Middle East ringing hollow in the ears of every arab. Had we intervened in Syria it's likely that we'd now be stuck in the middle of a horrific civil war that was costing the lives of our own people for no material improvement in the situation, and as we've seen by now the likelihood is that the islamists would have come out of it in the box seat. And as for Egypt, I honestly don't see what we could have done there given that Mubarak was a long-standing ally who was hated by his own people. Anything the west did or said there was sure to be criticised and since we were never going to actually intervene there was always a limit to what we could actually achieve.

The American President may well be the most powerful man on earth but there are still limits to what American power can achieve. I don't really see how positive outcomes could have been achieved just by a slight nudging of Obama's foreign policy levers. The whole region is a mess.

Sassenach wrote:

Time will tell. I think it's a bit of a fad and the hype will fade as reality sets in.

I'm not so sure. What I think will ultimately happen is that we'll crack the technical problems associated with some form of radical technology that will render our reliance on hydrocarbons redundant. Most probably this will be some form of fusion power (there's an interesting thread on this that Neal posted in the science forum as it happens). In the meantime though it seems almost inconceivable to me that the coming generation will want to turn its back on environmentalism.

I've read that Lockheed thinks they have a breakthrough on fusion. I agree. I've long felt the next "Age" will be the "Age of Energy." Nothing could launch mankind forward quite like super cheap or free energy.

It's not "inconceivable" to me. When they realize the hypocrisy, hysteria, and Malthusian overtones attending the green agenda, I think they will reject it.

One thing is clear: merely sticking a thumb on the scale was not the right thing to do. He preached against Assad and Mubarak, but did little else. That led to a 3-sided civil war in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. In Libya, we bombed the dictator, permitting Islamists to take the upper hand.

Stumbling into these situations was, imnsho, worse than staying out. There was no vision, no policy, and no clue on what the consequences would be.

Doing nothing is still a positive choice that involves a leap into the dark with no clear idea of the consequences. You're wanting to have your cake and eat it here.

Not really. Realpolitik would have dictated that the status quo was better than the unknown. We tossed pragmatism aside for idealism (as GWB did with Iraq) and the result was unpredictable. However, the odds of things turning out positively were slight to begin with.

In Libya we intervened and it turned out badly. In Syria we did nothing and it turned out badly. In Egypt we also did nothing and it only resolved itself because there was a coup which has left us once again tacitly endorsing a military dictator.

In Libya, we intervened by air. That doesn't buy much loyalty. In Egypt, after the MB debacle, I'm confident that someone worked behind the scenes to restore the military to power. If we find out at some point that Obama did this, I'll give him his due. Certainly to his credit: he shut his mouth (eventually) when the military deposed the MB.

What should have been donein each of those situations ? Had there been no Libyan intervention then Gaddafi would have no doubt slaughtered thousands of people and we'd have been left with a situation where a man who we'd recently begun doing business with again was an international pariah, leaving all the noble sentiments about spreading democracy to the Middle East ringing hollow in the ears of every arab.

Maybe. However. there are maybe 20K dead? So, did we save lives? Did we leave Libya in a decent place? Do they have a better government?

Had we intervened in Syria it's likely that we'd now be stuck in the middle of a horrific civil war that was costing the lives of our own people for no material improvement in the situation, and as we've seen by now the likelihood is that the islamists would have come out of it in the box seat.

By doing nothing even as ISIS grew, we have the potential for a debacle of epic proportions. And, as usual, the President pronounces what he will not do at every possible moment. I can't believe that helps anywhere save the wilds of Vermont.

And as for Egypt, I honestly don't see what we could have done there given that Mubarak was a long-standing ally who was hated by his own people. Anything the west did or said there was sure to be criticised and since we were never going to actually intervene there was always a limit to what we could actually achieve.

Yes, but had we propped Mubarak up, he may have survived. In any event, it seems equilibrium has been achieved there.

The American President may well be the most powerful man on earth but there are still limits to what American power can achieve. I don't really see how positive outcomes could have been achieved just by a slight nudging of Obama's foreign policy levers. The whole region is a mess.

Yes, it is a mess. However, I don't believe his speech in Egypt at the beginning of his first term, or anything he has said or done have helped the region. That's the point. Every President inherits problems. This one waits until they are overwhelming to act upon them.

Btw, I don't think anyone can know what the "right" thing to do in each of those situations is. However, it's pretty easy to see that Obama's hitting closer to his weight than we would like.

Yeah, George, did you see Steve complaining about only "corporations" and "fatcats" doing well under Obama....of course our politics are still far apart but in the baseball league we seem to have more agreement...And Ebola, and on Israel I suspect.