There is a saying: You cant run with the hare and hunt with the hound. In this case the hound is the RECESSION and the Hare is Obama. I think it will be in everone's interest if US gets out of the recession. If trhere is a downturn in the US economy it affects the whole world and hence it in in everone's interest to see that the remedies suggested by Barack Obama work. He has said repeadetly that nationalising the finacial institutions will not work and he intwends using the leverage of government to shake things up and he has done that successfully.

Personal responsibility is al right when it come to an indididual mistake or hhybris. However when a systemic crisis (pardon me for that unbearable sociological jargon) breaks out the response cannonly be collective and therefore the state not individuals can help get out of the crisis.

I think this is the mature response. Unfortunately not all can be so forthright and courageous.

I too have seen very hard times and have had to struggle my way out.

Of course is is everyones interest to come out of the recession. They have always come and gone, this one was compounded by issues by the financial institutions (which BTW seem to be doing well now) and a few key industries like the auto makers (which didn't need a fortune teller to see that coming). When the first one got a bail out then the open hands came out. The government should never have started filling them (Bushes and the Democrat majority congress fault). But it didn't end there. Obama raised the stakes (again with the Democrat majority congress) but this time there was a bigger hand out, and a golden opportunity to spend more money on that have no impact on the recession what so ever, they just cost money. Remember Obama's warning if the Stimulus didn't pass? As hard as I look I don't see one dime of it being spent in my geographical area. Know why? It was a lie to garner public support for a bill nobody had a chance to read in it's entirety. Wasn't part of the housing problem because many people didn't read the contract? What have we learned? Transparency my @ss.

When the house is burning you don't worry about ensuring it's "green" powered or if the pigs smell. When you had your hard times did you buy new cars or major appliances? My guess would be no, you applied it to the basics. Why is the government getting involved with things that won't be ready for years (if ever) when the money (and less of it) can be used for more urgent things now? What experience does government have running industry? Obama's experience is with a non-profit organization, using other peoples money whether it did well or was a drain of capital. Apparently he's living in the same world now, dealing with things he will never understand. I hope all his supporters will send him a check if they believe in his wise use of others money. I personally don't. When you feed a pigeon, suddenly you find yourself surrounded with them. That's what will happen on this income re-distribution, it always needs more and more.

I don't expect you to change your or anyone else's mind, so many are drawn to the light. I saw it many times when I was in the military; young people in trouble because they bought things they couldn't afford. I would counsel them, many listened some wouldn't (and it eventually caught up to them). At that point you can just stand by and watch the train wreck, hoping there is something to recover. I'll just leave you with this thought... If Obama's "investments" as so wonderful, so good for the country, why aren't private investors and entrepreneurs jumping on board? It has to be profitable right? Folks should be investing hand over fist to cash in big in the near future, right? Name me a government investment that has paid for itself? Name one that has returned money to the taxpayer?

To be fair, the Chrysler loan.  And several TARP recipients already want to give the money back, though the Treasury is refusing to take it (which says a LOT).

yes, its not exactly a "loan" when you have to take it and it involves the government taking over your business.

The Constitution is nothing but an annoying hindrance to these people (all sworn to uphold it, of course).

it is funny, they used to say that about bush, but here we have true and horrific violations of the constitution and nary a peep of dissent.

I cannot understand the comparison with Bush. The former president took the USA to war wihout any reason. The presentr one wants to lead USA from darkness to light, from war to peace, from weakness to strength and from recession to prosperity.

wow, you sound fanatic. first of all there were a ton of reasons, not the least of which that saddam was evil. Secondly it was voted on by congress and almost every single congressman/woman voted to go to war with iraq. Including all the democrats.

The current one said he will withdraw from iraq but so far just bolstered our troops in afghanistan, promises to invade pakistan, calls out russia as an "enemy" and so on.

Weakness to strength? he wishes to disarm us... or do you beleive less weapons means more power? That is naive beyond beleif.

Finally, from recession to properity has nothing to do with constitutional violations (not that your other claims did), but all he is doing is making the recession worse, and in fact he was in the thick of causing this recession to begin with, with his socialistic racial agenda of "affordable housing to those who can't afford it by spreading the risk".

Where did the comparison to bush come from? from the fact that people were saying that he is literally wiping his ass with the constitution.

Finally... there is the whole "darkness to light thing", seriously, wtf is that? thats just fanatic chanting, you are not even making an actual claim here. Is this the future of debate? "obama is violatign the constitution" "no he is not, he is the messiah who leads us from darkness to light!" Can you be a little LESS crazy? Everyone tends to think that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot and a fanatic, but you are making me worry that I should not ignore those tendencies as they might actually be true in this case.

The problem Bahu is that we don't have any historical evidence that this works (at least not from what I have seen).  I've heard the debate to whether FDR's spending plan bailed us out of the Great Depression or it was actually the war.  As a result, we cannot use this one instance as supporting evidence to what Obama should be doing when we have other instances. 

Japan tried it and it made their recession worse.

USSR tried it and it made their recession worse.  Russia during this economic crisis injected funds before we did and they are now suffering worse than we are.

I would be surprised if China tried it and saw similar results as above.

The question then is why do we think we can duplicate what FDR did without a World War?

Bahu, let me offer some things for you to consider.  During FDR's term and recession where did the revenue come from to pay for these injections?  At that time we were supplying many of the waring countries with supplies. 

The challenge we have now is there is no global war in fact quite the opposite.  We are the one's at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  So unlike WWII, we now have much less cash flow to work with.  This money has to come from somewhere, printing money OR borrow the money.  With the debt already too big (which Democrats were screaming bloody murder and I agreed with them then), now, we are gonna increase it multiple times? 

Yeah, I remember President Bush's weird announcements about wanting to bring war to the US, about making the US weak, and about his hope that America will enter a recession soon.

Daiwa good catch on Chrysler, I believe they even paid back interest, a good investment at the time.. The bailout "returns" I don't consider investments, That's just giving back what never should have been taken in the first place. Besides I'm sure all the lawyers involve it ended up costing the taxpayer something, even if they didn't spend a red cent. The others that kept the money, I don't know if there are provisions to pay it back or not. Even if they do what good is it if they are jacking your credit card up to 15% and higher, raising fees, and giving low interest rates on savings. I'd hardly call that a good investment.

You did say "I'm not too sure..." So, I supplied the support.I am curious though as to you not being sure about the persecution, when you claim now that you have that experience. Maybe it's just me, but it made my eyebrows raise.

As for - as you claimed - experience: I've been there 3 times, my significant other is from there, my best friend is from there, I'm active in causes that support tibet, taiwan, etc. I did my AA degree paper on Chinese media's role with persecution of the Falun Gong, etc. I may not be as well informed or an expert, so to speak, as you are, but at least I'm not completely ignorant; I've got my experience and knowledge.

BTW, I never said I was an expert.

~Alderic

I'm not sure what darkness you speak of, my country is doing well, even in these economic downs, there's no darkness here. But then I have to ask, how do you bring your country into the light while going around the world apologizing to everyone for us and then telling everyone how the reason other countries have problems such as drugs and weapons is because Americans are to blame?

Peace? Obama is not only continuing the war in Afghanistan, he is adding more trops and plans on crossing over to Pakistan. You call this peace?

Strenght? Yea, dumb down the whole military, make us look weak by saying I'm sorry to everyone and blame us for the drug and gun problems in Mexico. Did I miss anything?

Prosperity? Do you even know what that means? Here's the definition:

an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment

In order for there to be properity, Obama would have to do the opposite of what he is doing. Raising the debt higher will not accomplish that.