Geithner has done a TERRIBLE job as Treasury Secretary. And yes - he STILL doesn't give direct answers to direct questions. He should have been fired long before now.
President Obama could have enacted all the economic policies he wanted during his first two years in office, if only he had done these three things:
1. Focused on the ECONOMY - not ObamaCare.
2. Taken the WHIP to Reid and Pelosi; and made HIS agenda THEIR agenda; and had them bring the Democratic troops in line. By all accounts, he had a much easier job doing this than Boehner had with the Tea Party. The left has been excoriating the Tea Party for four years as being "radical" and "extreme," and that they should fall in line with the rest of the GOP so that something could get done. Well - the President had the power in his hands for two years to get something done on the economy. The results were a failed stimulus and ObamaCare.
3. Told the Republicans that HE MEANT BUSINESS, but was willing to forge compromises in the best interests of the country. Translated: balance the budget; lower the deficit; and bring American jobs home by implementing REAL incentives for small businesses - not the lip-service they've gotten for four years. This message alone - by DOING SOMETHING - would probably have been enough to instill confidence in the business community and spurred the investment/creation of more American jobs. Business - large and small - is the engine which runs this economy. LEADERSHIP is what we need now more than ever.
There is no way the Republicans could have "rigged the game before Barack Obama had even started playing" - because the President, with HIS White House, HIS Senate, and HIS House of Representatives, was holding all the cards at the start of the game. And he held them FOR TWO YEARS!!!
If somebody who holds all the cards can't figure out how to win the game, it is definitely time for a change.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of Barack Obama's presidency.
"For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate," Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.
In fact, Democrats had a 60-vote majority for less than 5 months between Sept. 24, 2009 and Feb. 4, 2010. Before and after, Republicans had enough seats to mount filibusters, which they often did.
....and in his hands the President held the hopes and dreams of the American people. He controlled the White House and Congress, and had an essentially willing constituency (and then some) ready to follow his lead. And where did he lead them? To a failed economy; disunity throughout the country; and massive debt which will be visited upon our children and our grandchildren. He squandered all of the political "gifts" he had at the outset of his term, and now he wants four more years to get it right?
By all estimates, if the President is reelected he won't have control of Congress this time around like he did in his first two years. He hasn't shown an ability or a willingness to work with the opposition to actually get things done. Shoot - he seems more willing to work with the RUSSIANS than he does with the Republicans.
What does that tell you?
Filibusters are overcome before they occur. Every savvy politician knows this. One who gets elected as President of the United States is presumed to be "savvy." If he isn't, he should have been smart enough to hire advisors who were "savvy." As Chief of Staff, Mr. Obama hired Rahm Emanuel - someone who is widely known to refer to Republicans as "GD MF SOBs."
(I'll let you fill in the obscenities.)
All the president had to do was LEAD. Ronald Reagan and JFK didn't have all the cards in their hand when they were President either, but they GOT THINGS DONE because they knew how to lead.
Now more than ever, we need one of those.
It tells me that the President was set up from the start..when he sat at his desk he had 2 unpaid wars, we were losing thousands of jobs daily, a congress that set him up and he still managed to add jobs daily, take out terrorist and the economy and housing market is turning around. Why would we go back to the failed policies that put us in this mess?
He accomplished a lot while fighting the right. Imagine what he will do when he has the house and the senate...You may want to look at the latest polls...The Republicans are going to lose those seats and the Democrats will have control of the house and the senate...
(And before I get TOO "carried away" - let me say welcome back, PolNat. I respect your opinion and your right to say it. Just because I run off at the mouth - and try to do so with vigor - doesn't mean that what I say is always correct. I understand that what is correct for me is not always correct for somebody else. But when I believe something, I try to "sound off like I a have a pair.")
Sebekm- The proof is in the pudding....He's ahead in the polls and will win a 2nd term despite the lies, voter suppression and so called failed economy ( republicans failed the economy) I call that "Savvy" :)
"The Republicans are going to lose those seats and the Democrats will have control of the house and the senate..."
I don't think so - but if it happens and he gets reelected, he better actually DO SOMETHING GOOD for the economy this time, and NOT "capitulate" to the Russians. He won't have any excuses this time, and my hunch is that he won't have the media in his pocket either. If Term 2 goes like Term 1, even THEY may show some sympathy for the GOP. And Mr. Obama might even be ranked below Dubya on the list of all-time U.S. Presidents.
@ Sebekm...I'm glad to be back..I'm passionate about my belief too... so I understand. The debate/dialogue is great (no mud)..Glad to be here.
No - I mean "savvy" in the sense of being able to LEAD. It should be easy to lead when you control all branches of government, but you can't expect the opposition to just cave. You have to arm-twist, cajole, wheedle, and schmooze. As President, you have the inherent power to do that better than anybody. You can't just say "F-it" the way Obama did when he ran into a little opposition. He could have gotten Boehner to work the Tea Party if he had gotten Reid and Pelosi under control. THEY then control their minions. But look what happened:
*Mr. Obama wanted ObamaCare. He got ObamaCare. And the so-called "shills" on the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality.
*Mr. Obama wanted a big stimulus. He got a big stimulus. Unfortunately, it did little to actually stimulate anything other than the federal deficit.
He got what he wanted. What I'm saying is that HE SHOULD HAVE WANTED SOMETHING ELSE!!! There's no reason to believe that if he had - and had executed the persuasion as needed - that he would have succeeded just as he did with what he DID want to do.
I agree with Politics that Obama will be re-elected but by a narrow margin. He will get the electorial votes not the popular vote. I think Obama is a decent guy, loving father and husband. A man who does not like to miss more than two dinners a week with his family. That is great BUT we need someone in office willing to put in the long hard hours. Someone who doesn't care if everyone thinks he's a nice guy or not.
I understand. However, he's a great leader and he cares about the 47%..that's why he ALSO pushed health care reform...He had no idea every bill that was put fourth by his administration would be shot down...if he knew those men were meeting to plan his demise..He was blind sided...He had no Idea the Right would hurt the country because of their hate for him. They voted against bills that would have provided millions of jobs (manufacturing jobs)..The right set America back...
Please stop repeating the lie about the 47%, you lose crediablity when you do. Even if what you say about the right is true, which I do not beleive it is, he still has to find a way to make it work. That's his job. I haven't seen any benefits to his healthcare plan but the fact it is driving up the cost of healthcare making it even more out of reach.
@up2-The 47% issue isn't a lie...He said -that he didn't care about the 47%. I listened to the tape and that's my conclusion. If I lose creditability with you- that's okay. I want back down on that. However, I do acknowledge that what he said could be viewed several ways -It's like Obama's gaff "you didn't build that"...People viewed it several ways good and bad.
He said he didn't care about their vote not he didn't care about them. I like things to be accurate. If someone posted here and was twisting what BHO said or talking birther nonsense I would just as strongly defend him.
Politics, during the healthcare process in 2009 can you tell me why none of these ideas introduced by Tom Price wasn’t implemented into the healthcare legislation. President Obama said he would reach across party lines and the Republicans attempted to do so; however Nancy Pelosi sent this legislation to committee without going to the floor for a vote?
The actual truth is that BHO isn’t a LEADER and didn’t triangulate the best ideas of both parties to promote prosperity in America like JFK, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton!
Healthy discussion of our political system.
There are two parties represented in our Congress and they (on both sides) often get caught up in the battle to stop the other side from achieving a particular goal.
They fail to work together due to their respective leadership and that leaderships ability (or lack thereof) to actually work with others for the common good of the nation.
George Washington warned us about this in his farewell address.
"The actual truth is that BHO isn't a LEADER and didn't triangulate the best ideas of both parties to promote prosperity in America like JFK, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton!"
President Obama is a gifted public speaker but apparently that is about all there is to him.
He was too young and held too little experience especially in the real world of capitalism.
His complete history of employment has been in public service.
Free enterprise is what made this country prosperous and what derives the revenue to sustain the government.
President Obama is a socialist and his disdain for self made people who have earned their wealth in our free enterprise system has been his downfall.
I do not want to minimize the dialoge but...It seems some of us feel that the failed last four years is not "his fault" When someone is in any type of leadership position, they accept the good and bad of what occurs on thier watch. We for some reason are giving the obamonator a get out of jail free card in this regard. I ask why. As for the 47% statement, Romney did not say he did not care, only that he cannot focus on a percentile that is swayed by entitlments. Of course we all have our interpretation; However, four years of the worst economic crisis since the depression should be easy to comprehend, and act.
The question "are we better off than 4 years ago" is indeed foolish. A more intelligent question would be based on the economic reality of the time. The recession had great momentum and a very strong downward trajectory. All of the factors were going south fast. The Republican side of the aisle openly worked to prevent progress – as they stated in their "only goal". A better question might be "Given the worst recession of 30 years was it even possible completely recover when Republicans obstructed all progress?". Could any coach win a championship with half of the team actually trying to lose?
The answer is YES - providing the coach knew what he was doing. Job 1 is to get the ENTIRE TEAM on board. Obama could have done this if he had actually LED. The key players were Reid, Pelosi and Boehner. As it turned out, he had more success getting Boehner on board than he did with the other two. They fought him tooth and nail and he couldn't even pass a budget through a Dem-controlled Congress.
Prior presidents worked with a Congress controlled by the other party and got things done. Obama's problem is that his experience as a community organizer and (briefly) as U.S. Senator didn't prepare him for doing what needed to be done. Now he seems UNWILLING to do what needs to be done.
It's time for a CHANGE soe we can again have HOPE.
IKY, please name one Major Legislation Bill that the Republicans stopped in 2009 and 2010; for Christs sake Obamacare passed without Constitutional Muster and even though there wasn't a filibuster proof Senate the whole two years it still can't be regarded as half the team with a minimum of 55 Senators and 255 Congress Persons. Thats 310 of a possible total of 535, that's not half.
The "Republicans stopped us" is just lame spin by the Dems to explain why they could not GOVERN during Obama's first term. It has been a fact ever since this country was created that the party in power MUST LEAD. Otherwise, you get nowhere fast. That's where we are now.
I find it interesting that we supposedly are heading off a fiscal "cliff." Lately, you hear the Dems talking about it all the time and trying to blame the Republicans for it. From the results during the past four years, it is clear that - aside from ObamaCare and a failed stimulus - the only place this administration has been able to lead our economy is off a cliff.
Remember in November. 34 days.
@sebekm- you seem to focus a great deal on your perception that the President was unable to persuade congress and lead lead..What about Mitt? He would rather write 47% off than work for their vote..He should work to change their minds, get them on board, compromise and bring the 47% and the 53% together...
PolNat - I wasn't the one who asked for blocked bills. Funky asked that of IKY in his 20:35 Oct 2 post above. I don't care about blocked bills. That's politics as usual which PRESIDENTS WHO LEAD get around by forging compromises, twisting arms, wheedling, cajoling and desk-pounding - even with their own party.
Sometimes "blocked" bills are actually trade-offs for bills passed. I know that - which is why my issue is not with blocked bills, but with presidential LEADERSHIP.
The only leadership we're getting now is off the fiscal cliff.
This election is not a referendum on Romney's ability to lead. He has demonstrated that he gets the job done in every aspect of his prior career until now. We are deciding whether to REELECT an incumbent President. It's HIS record that's on display and it's OBAMA who is asking the country to give him four more years.
I want to reward competence, not failure or "incomplete." Obama himself said that if he couldn't fix the economy in his first term he would be "a one term deal." I agree. It's time to show him the door.
@sebekm..."This election is not a referendum on Romney ability to lead"?! Romney ability to lead is key...What career?? Making money off shutting down plants and taking employees 401K and other benefits...sending their jobs over-seas...He didn't create one job...he took jobs that were already created and sold/outsourced them... Please watch video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhQlnx...
The referendum is on the INCUMBENT leader of the free world. What has HE done the past four years. To counter - Romney's leadership is well established, and it won't be defined by your Dem attack talking points.
I look for Romney to be on the attack for the next 5 weeks, much as he was last night. Romney's campaign HAS been on the defensive for the past month or so, but last night provides him with a tremendous opportunity to take the initiative and focus the campaign where it SHOULD BE:
On PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PERFORMANCE over the past four years, and whether he DESERVES four more.
As to the debate itself: when the Washington Post gives "Six reasons Mitt Romney won the first debate," you know he whipped Mr. Obama's behind:
When the President has to run on his record, he loses. It's as simple as that.