Forum z czterech stron swiata Strona Główna z czterech stron swiata

 FAQFAQ   SzukajSzukaj   UżytkownicyUżytkownicy   GrupyGrupy   GalerieGalerie   RejestracjaRejestracja 
 ProfilProfil   Zaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomościZaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomości   ZalogujZaloguj 

World Economists Confirm America's Decline Under Obama

Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum z czterech stron swiata Strona Główna -> Polityka & Ekonomia
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość

Dołączył: 14 Wrz 2007
Posty: 1874
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

PostWysłany: Pią 13:59, 19 Paź 2012    Temat postu: World Economists Confirm America's Decline Under Obama

U.S. voters are being barraged by claims and counter claims of how many jobs were lost or created under the Obama administration, did the Detroit bailout hurt or help, and whether Obama or Republican stonewalling are to blame for the feeble recovery. This partisan din kicks up a huge cloud of dust as self-appointed “independent fact checkers” and “nonpartisan” think tanks contradict each other. Large numbers of economists, some prominent and others less so, line up on both sides. Pity the harried undecided voters in search of non-partisan information.

American voters could well look above our political fray to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). Every year starting in 2004, the GCI ranks the world economies by their “competitiveness,” defined as “the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country,” which, in turn, determines “the level of prosperity that can be earned by an economy.”

On the Failed Job Creation Front, Obama Has Completely Run Out of Ideas Paul Roderick GregoryContributor

Storm Clouds Ahead As Putin Takes On McCartney, Madonna And The LGBT Community Paul Roderick GregoryContributor

Outsourcer-In-Chief: Obama Of General Motors Paul Roderick GregoryContributor

The Global Rock and Roll Community Must Step Up In Support of Pussy Riot Paul Roderick GregoryContributor

Throughout most of its short history, the GCI ranked the United States first or second. At times, Switzerland, Finland, Singapore, Denmark, and Finland have given the U.S. a run for its money.

The GCI, to its credit, addresses what should be the core issue of any political debate in any country: How well have country leaders managed the economic and political institutions that create prosperity and growth? Obama should be re-elected or “let go” depending on how American voters evaluate his stewardship of America’s political and economic institutions.

The World Economic Forum’s motto is: “Committed to Improving the State of the World.” Its annual winter meeting in Davos, Switzerland attracts the world’s jet-setting political, business, and intellectual glitterati as they discuss issues de jure — the world economy, health and HIV, climate change, and globalization. Presidents, prime ministers, central bankers, queens and parliamentary/congressional notables rub shoulders with Bill Gates, Russian oligarchs, Henry Kissinger, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Kofi Annan.

Barack Obama fits the intellectual, cosmopolitan, and global profile of the World Economic Forum to a T. A GCI conclusion that U.S. political and economic institutions deteriorated under Obama’s stewardship could not be spun as partisan by Obama’s spin masters.

When George Bush passed the baton to Barrack Obama in January of 2009, the 2008-2009 edition of the GCI ranked the U.S. number one as it had since 2006-2007.

The 2008-2009 report gave the U.S. top ranking despite its ongoing financial crisis and shaky banking system because “the country is endowed with many structural features that make its economy extremely productive and that place it on a footing to ride out the business cycle and economic shocks.” So, the GCI projected that America’s relative strengths – its efficient product, labor and financial markets, higher education, innovation, and business sophistication – would allow the new administration to handily overcome its weaknesses – deficits, debt, and primary education.

Contrary to this upbeat assessment, America experienced the worst economic recovery of postwar history under the Obama administration.

Fast forward now to the 2011-2012 GCI report’s explanation of why the mighty U.S. fell from first to fifth place during the three years of Obama:

“While many structural features continue to make its economy extremely productive, a number of escalating weaknesses have lowered the US ranking in recent years. US companies are highly sophisticated and innovative, supported by an excellent university system…… On the other hand, there are some weaknesses …..that have deepened since past assessments. The business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions (39th)…. it remains concerned about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (50th), and it considers that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (66th)…. and regulation more burdensome (58th). A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the United States’ greatest area of weakness (90th).”

While the efficiency and innovation of American business remain highly ranked, at third and fifth respectively, our public and private institutions’ score (36) ranks us with Ireland, Spain, and Israel; our arms-length ranking (50) is matched by Ethiopia, Poland, and Jordan; our government-waste (66) equals Azerbaijan, Iran, and South Africa; and our regulatory-burden (39) ties with eight countries that include Panama, Trinidad, Mali, Ireland, and El Salvador.

The 2010-2011 GCI report warns that our lack of macroeconomic stability will “likely weigh heavily on the country’s future growth.” The U.S.’s government-deficit ranking (139) is matched by Greece, Botswana and Swaziland. (No surprise that the Europeans did not want to be lectured by Timothy Geithner).

UPDATE: The 2012 GCI report issued September 5 downgraded the U.S. two more points from fifth to seventh on the second day of the Democratic national convention (See today’s Drudge Report).

The World Economic Forum’s apolitical Global Competitiveness Index reinforces the “restore America’s greatness” mantra of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It confirms that the American free enterprise system suffered serious setbacks under Obama. The GCI shows that the very things that Conservatives criticize — wasteful government spending, unsustainable deficits, burdensome regulations, crony capitalism, lack of government transparency, and business mistrust of government institutions– are indeed dragging down the US economy and must be corrected and soon.

The GCI offers, also, a note of optimism. America’s business remains strong and innovative. Our labor markets function well. Our markets are competitive and vibrant. We offer the world a huge market. Americans remain the world’s innovators. Our universities are unmatched. The core of American greatness remains intact. It is its institutions that must be fixed.

When candidate Obama promised the “people of the world” a more cooperative, humble, and carbon-free America in Berlin, his audience did not expect America’s relative decline. Europe, like the rest of the world, needs an America of strong economic and political institutions, growth, and innovation.

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość

Dołączył: 14 Wrz 2007
Posty: 1874
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

PostWysłany: Pią 14:04, 19 Paź 2012    Temat postu:

The American economy may have declined under Obama but would it have been any different under any other leader? This decline was caused by Banks/Bankers/Financial Markets and their greed.
Why does the World allow:
- Unelected financiers to control (they have the funds Governments need to borrow) our economies?
- Financiers to create all sorts of financial instruments (most not understood by anyone else) which allow them to sell at a profit?
- Investment Banks to use algorithms that allow them to profit on bets to win/lose at the same time?
- Why does nobody seem to understand that money is finite and so this (stolen?) profit means the rest of the World has lost it?

John Leonard: But the World Economic Forum says we are declining because of bad political management not due to the things you blame. I am just reporting what they say.

No, the decline happened because almost everyone (almost) thought housing
prices would never go down and we became overleveraged, aided by government sponsored agencies that bought most of the mortgages entered into under this faulty assumption. Greed had very little to do with it. Bad policy did. And, no money is not finite. It is a medium of exchange that when managed properly tracks economic output. I’m sorry, you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.

Pr. Gregory,
The economies of Europe, Canada, and Japan, as well as the United States have all been in decline together and for a very long time, long before Mr. Obama came into office. Further the recent acceleration of the decline has been world wide. No actions of the US president, any president or any party, can have that sort of effect.

David: You miss the point. The CGI measures relative decline. The U.S> is declinggn faster than the other countries.

David: You miss the point. The CGI measures relative decline. The U.S. is declinggn faster than the other countries

First, in regards to Mr. Obama, you wrote:”World Economists Confirm America’s Decline Under Obama”

However if you actually read the details it the report says:“A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the United States’ greatest area of weakness (90th). Over the past decade, the country has been running repeated fiscal deficits, leading to burgeoning levels of public indebtedness that are likely to weigh heavily on the country’s future growth.”

The greatest change in the index occurred because government decisions made “Over the past decade”, i.e. under President Bush.

Second, you wrote “CGI measures relative decline.” This is not correct, the CGI score does not measure relative decline but absolute changes ,it is the rankings that are relative. In fact, in “Figure1: Competitiveness trends, 2005–11″ on page 23 it can be seen that all “Advanced economies” declined together. The decline in the US index as well as that for the Advanced Economies all begin at the same time.

Japan, Norway, France, Canada, Iceland, Russia, Ukraine, Italy, and many other Advanced Economies all declined in score. Germany declined in score but rose in ranking. So the US is not really any different from any of the other advanced economies.

Further, the three of top five performing countries, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland and countries you would consider “socialist”. It was just a few months ago that you were writing “Look To Sweden! Obama’s High-Tax Gurus”[1] and saying:

“The parallels between the Swedish Social Democrats and their labor allies of the 1970s and the Obama administration are striking. Both share a ‘strong suspicion of markets, economic incentives, and private entrepreneurship.’ A century of growth based on free enterprise made both countries rich. This hard-won affluence gives a cushion to survive the negative effects of exorbitant tax rates and entitlements.”

If your use of the CGI is an important measure of economic progress, it would seem that Sweden is doing exactly the right things. According to this report:”These characteristics come together to make Sweden one of the most productive and competitive economies in the world.”

[1] [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

You should probably look at the data for yourself. The top 3 problematic factors for doing business are inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates, and tax regulations. All problems created by government and over regulation. There will always be loopholes and there will always be people smart enough to exploit them.
All the rankings are done relative (note the score from 1-7, that would be relative), the only places that the United States still maintained in first places rating were in the categories that were not relative, GDP, Market size, number of airline seats, and malaria.
Frankly, I don’t care who wins the election and you can blame it on republicans or democrats, none of them have any business sense. That is neither here nor there; my point is you should actually understand the information. You are just reading and cherry picking which sentences best advance your political agenda.

Aren’t the majority of factors causing the decline driven by Republicans who have an interest in swaying the numbers to indicate that Obama is doing a poor job? Sounds like Republicans being Republicans. I have a feeling that strict regulations didn’t cause the lending crisis and oil spill disasters. Im upset those companies weren’t more strictly regulated.

“The business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions (39th)…. it remains concerned about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (50th), and it considers that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (66th)…. and regulation more burdensome (58th).”

Matthew, I’m sure the President would agree, but the authors of the GCI report would not. “Wasteful government spending” would still be wasteful and “burdensome regulation” would still be burdensome in the absence of partisan criticism.

You cant seriously believe what you just said based on anything real.

You do realize that consistently Democrats have passed policy while controlling the government and congress that helped the poor and or lazy and at all times it has caused major economic failures.
Clinton and his Sub Prime lending forced on Mannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused those companies amoung others to give loans to people that years of research told those companies would be a bad idea! And because nothing was ever done to stop that Clintons mistake came to fruition in Bush and Obamas Presidencies. Of course Clinton didnt mean for it to mess up Obama!

And notice how Obama has Obamacare paid for for only 6 years out of the 10!
The last four years I am sure he considered he would set up the GOP President who he knew would be being voted in after he does what he is doing if the American people catch it and he needs them to have this healthcare unpaid for when they take office so the people will think the GOP president is doing bad and vote him out giving him only one term.

Obama is a sneak. The liberals are sneaks and they constantly lie when they need votes and call the Republicans liars every chance they get.

Well, I am an INDEPENDANT and I dont claim one side or the other.

Once I fact checked them I found on many occasions the Liberal Media will quote what a republican says in a news headline and then have a bunch of Liberals tell you what he meant by his quote.
Then I will go to a Conservative news source and find the same Headline about the same person only on this news source they actually show the Person speaking and saying the quote in the headline. But not only that they show him explaining WHY he said what he said or did what he did.

The Liberals are really dupping America. And whats worse is they have trained Liberal citizens to say things like,” republicans dont do the research and they are confused.” The amount of Liberals citizens being interviewed I heard say this at the DNC was unbelievable. I was thinking to myself and wanting to scream at the TV,” Who the hell do you think you are saying that when you know damn well you have never done any research for real and if you do it is only a google search so you can say you did your due dilligence!”
They really dont research and I now know they dont because I DO!
And I know who is twisting the truth and putting spin on the news.
It is the Liberals.

Its just said the Liberals think they are doing research because they read Liberal Media! When doing proper research is so much more then just listening to your favorite news ancor.
This is serious and any Republican or person who speaks out against Obama is met wth Ridicule and scorn for speaking the truth about this man.

I looked it up. We are 5th, behind only tiny rich countries like Sweden and Switzerland, and ahead of Germany, Japan, France, China, and the UK. That does not look like a decline.

And Switzerland, no 1, is best compared with the San francisco bay area, equal to it in size. How would it compare? Probably way behind. And Finland, also above the US in the GCI, might be compared with Minnesota. Maybe Finland would not compare well either. Actually Finland has a lower per capita income than MN.

Dont assume people will read your articles without checking the source. We will. And the data just does not support your proposition that the US is in decline.

What if we measured states that follow Obama-esque policies versus those with more conservative systems of governance using the GCI?

Where would LA rank compared to MA? CA vs TX?

I’m not great at math but going from 1 to 5 is a decline.

You’re right. Math is not your strong suit. 1 to 5 doesn’t NECESSARILY mean a decline on that place. It could be a rise from the other 4.

The Liberal is very good and telling you that you are wrong while giving you wrong information swaring they are correct while they dont even understand what they are talking about. All the while(this is crazy I know) telling you that you dont understand!!!

Its a real damn shame.

Ostatnio zmieniony przez palmela dnia Pią 14:44, 19 Paź 2012, w całości zmieniany 2 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość

Dołączył: 14 Wrz 2007
Posty: 1874
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

PostWysłany: Pią 14:10, 19 Paź 2012    Temat postu:

I agree that we are in decline. I agree that it is due to bad political management. I do not place complete blame on President Obama due to America’s political system.
If we were an European parliamentary democracy, the blame could be placed squarely on the ruling coalition or party – they have the majority, they make the rules. Here, faced with an obstructionist Congress, in all fairness both Democratic and Republican, the President has little authority to take action on his own. The President’s policies that might have helped stem the decline were either killed by squabbles within his own party or by a Republican party whose stated number one priority was defeat of the President. They may have gotten their wish, the current election is neck-in-neck, but at what cost? It is simplistic to blame the President alone for the current situation. As most Americans would, I place most of the blame on Congress.

Presidents past have dealt with divided and obstructionist congresses.
It’s part of the job. It’s called leadership and without it our economy suffers.

Pr. Gregory,
You are most certainly correct that the US economy is in a downward spiral. However it has nothing to do with “strong dollar” policies, or indeed any policies that any president can effect.
Consider the performance of the stock market, today the DJIA and SP500 stand about where they did 12 years ago.
On January 14, 2000 the DJIA was 11,722.98 and on October 9, 2007 it was 14,164.53 while on March 9th of this year it was 12,922.02. That is less than a about 10 % over 12 years.

Deloitte LLP makes clear in their recent report:”U.S. companies’ return on assets (ROA) have progressively dropped 75 percent from their 1965 level despite rising labor productivity.” Conversely, the corporate debt to equity ratio has nearly doubled over the same period. The same falling pattern was noted in the Return on Equity (ROE), as opposed to ROA. “This measure of asset profitability [ROE] is especially important as the overall debt/equity ratio for U.S. companies has been rising steadily, obscuring the underlying erosion in asset profitability”.[1].

The underlying problem is that of profitability, it is much more profitable to invest capital overseas where labor costs are lower. The Bank of England [2] recently release a report which touched on this topic. “Today’s [International Monetary and Financial System] has permitted large imbalances to build between countries, particularly over the past fifteen years or so. After having averaged just under 1% of world GDP between 1980 and 1997, net capital flows (measured as either the sum of all countries’ current account deficits or the sum of all countries’ current account surpluses) roughly tripled to a peak of almost 3% of world GDP in 2006–07 (Chart 4). Although imbalances reversed sharply in 2009, they remain high by historical standards and are forecast by the IMF to continue at around 2% of world GDP over the next five years at least. These growing flow imbalances have also been accompanied by growing stock imbalances.

Between 1998 and 2008, the US net external liability position quadrupled in size, rising to $3.3 trillion (or 23% of GDP). Over the same period, the net external asset positions of Japan and Germany rose by $1.3 trillion and $0.9 trillion respectively. Chinese data are only available from 2004, but show that net external assets increased by $1.2 trillion, to $1.5 trillion (33% of GDP) in 2008, mirroring the increase in the US net external liability position over this period.” In other words, capital is fleeing the traditional centers of capitalism, western Europe, the US, and Japan and moving to countries with very low labor costs. The bottom line is that Germany is on the same path that the United States is, they are just further behind.”

Consider however the entire economic period after the “Dot.Com Bust” of 2000. The entire economy has been in an extended period of non-growth since then. Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center [3] did an analysis (which had as its objective to put Mr. Obama’s tenure in a bad light). However, ignoring the political colorings, if one takes the numbers at face value, there are some important implications.

Combining Mr. Obama’s figures with Mr. Bush’s, the number of new jobs created since 2001 is 1.4 million. That is a lower number than all of the jobs created by Gerald Ford who was only in office two years and indeed any other president, including John Kennedy who was also in office of two years. This is staggering figure if correct.

What this appears to mean is that the US economy, even before The Great Recession and the economic meltdown of September 2008, would be hard pressed to produce jobs. Indeed, in another piece by Derek Thompson in the Atlantic [4] it was shown that since 1939 all sectors of the US economy expanded steadily except one, manufacturing. Manufacturing peaked in the mid-1960′s and has been steadily declining since 1980. Manufacturing has historically produced the largest number of jobs, the best paying jobs, and had the largest “ripple effect” on the economy by stimulating other sectors.

The driver for economic growth in a capitalist economy is capital investment. Capitalists invest in factories, mills, &c which create demand for raw materials and durable goods. Workers are hired and both at the facilities created and at downstream facilities supplying the raw materials and durable good. These workers purchase retail goods and services, &c. This is exactly what is not happening in the US economy.

The iron of capitalism is that capital seeks it’s highest return and that is where wages are lowest. Capital is being exported to nations where wages are lowland profits high. This has been going on for decades and there is nothing either candidate can do about.

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
] [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[4] [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

It surprises me the number of comments that have such a hard left spin. Let’s look at the business climate created in the last 3 ½ years that might affect this rating. Taking over two car companies and stiffing the bond holders to bail out the unions, by avoiding legal bankruptcy procedures? And he can’t do anything w/o Congress?
Don’t tell him that, he has sidestepped Congress and existing laws aplenty. When he got in trouble with Fast & Furious and the illegal operation started getting too close to home he exercised executive privilege. He doesn’t need Congress or laws. How about the pipeline that would have imported Canadian Oil and created thousands of good paying jobs, he squelched that and he also ignored a court order to lift the moratorium on oil production in the gulf.
He wants to create a division between those that are successful and those that are not.
The 1% occupy movement has his blessing; he told them they are why he ran for office. The top 10% of earners pay 71% of federal income taxes but aren’t paying their fair share.
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych] Still his mantra is the rich aren’t paying their fair share.[/b]

It is the uncertainly of what taxes and regulations will come down on business next week or next month that keeps trillions of dollars waiting to be invested. Business people don’t like to sit on money, they like to invest it and create more wealth, for them and others. This anti-business climate is the problem and is evident by the few people on Obama’s staff that have any business experience at all. Business is what creates wealth (hence taxes) not government.
The gov’t has been in the way too much too long, and it is getting worse exponentially during this administration. Time to clean house, and not just a little dusting. When people talk of balancing the budget they often think about cutting spending or raising taxes, but the real answer is to get the gov’t out of the way and let the private sector do what it does, create jobs and wealth. Of course reducing waste and unconstitutional spending is a must as well. To do a good job of this Romney would have to piss off a lot of people. I hope he gets elected and has dismal approval numbers for the first two years.

More likely than pissing of liberals, Romney would piss off conservatives like myself. Mitt Romney is now saying that he likes parts of obamacare. Inching his way into his true self, which is deeply liberal. Mitt Romney would make a far more successful democrat than he does a republican. His ideas are all liberal, excepting a few tax policy ideas. He’s gone etch-a-sketch on obamacare, what’s next? Mitt Romney has no leadership ability. And he denies that what is wrong with America can be fixed true conservative family values. His ideology is consistent with liberalism on a majority of the issues. On top of all of that, due to him having to pay back his current financiers, his military spending will destroy the U.S. economy.
You are one of the many on the right who has lost the ability to be objective about who you’d like for us to put in the Presidency

I have not lost the ability to be objective, though you may have lost the ability to read and comprehend.
Like all the conservatives I Know, Mitt was not my first choice. I spent a lot of time explaining what I think is wrong. I also explained what I thought is needed to fix it. Obama isn’t going to and the only chance we have is if Mitt turns into the conservative we wanted. I am not overly optometrist but realize what is needed.
what is the choice? not vote? vote for Obama? Write in a conservative?

V.M. Molotov 1 month ago
So much for “non-partisan.” Clearly business, big and small, is a constituency unto itself, hence the US Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Businesses. The former always howled particularly loudly during the Clinton years – I suspect that these questions would have elicited similar answers then – but as you may recall, we had the single greatest postwar expansion of wealth and prosperity the country had seen since the 1950s. So clearly whatever “business” is whining about bears little relation to reality.

[Side note: have you ever heard of any policy or economic question ever that the NFIB said was *not* bad for small business? Literally nothing is good for small business.]

But more importantly: this survey reflects few actual factors and instead produces an image of the business community’s *perceptions* about government.

- “The business community continues to *be critical* toward public and private institutions (39th)…”
- “It *remains concerned* about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (50th)”
- “It *considers that* the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (66th)…. and regulation more burdensome (58th).”

This is literally an opinion survey. Where’s the research that actually looks at, quantifies, and measures relative waste and efficiency across the public and private sectors? On what grounds, even, does the criticism of institutions across the board lie? And as for that “arm’s-length relationship” between government and industry, I’m pretty sure no one has done (or spent) more to bridge the gap than business itself.

Of course, that Romney/Ryan reference at the end of the article demolishes any vague illusion of nonpartisanship you may have been trying to convey. And more often than not, the foul-tasting medicine that business so loathes is exactly what the doctor ordered. If industry is crying out, you’re doing something right.

Mr. Molotov,
(How appropriate a name is that?)
You say “Literally nothing is good for small business.” Even a blind Molotov finds an acorn once in a while. Yes, the closer to nothing the more free the market. It is hard to nail down who actually said this but in my experience it rings true: “That government is best which governs least”

You also said, “And more often than not, the foul-tasting medicine that business so loathes is exactly what the doctor ordered. If industry is crying out, you’re doing something right.” This does not come from a friend of business but instead someone that dislikes and distrusts business. When is the last time you were given a job by a poor person? If you work for the government you also feed at the trough of business because business pay the taxes, either directly or through payroll taxes of their employees. Business is the only entity that creates wealth and you want to punish business for being successful. We have enough that think like you do already, I hope you don’t teach.

спортивное питание 1 month ago
I disagree to blame economic downturn on Obama, what is someone else was elected at the time of Obama took the office, are things would of been different, then they are right now, may be worse but not better, however Obama has major improvements made to American economy such as reduced the consumption of oil by 1 milliion barrels per day, alternative energy produces 10% of the total energy consumtion in America, he is on the right path and if he would be permitted to continue then we will such more economic improvements in his second term in the office

“But the World Economic Forum says we are declining because of bad political management not due to the things you blame.”

The President does not manage the Congress. Recalcitrant House Republicans were the ones who “managed” to get our credit rating downgraded, and then blocked every subsequent initiative of the President.

A reasonable reading of “bad political management” is that the problem is a dysfunctional Congress. Your interpretation sounds right out of the Romney/Ryan playbook that Obama is incompetent. Hyper-partisanship is killing us, and you are unfortunately part of the problem, Mr. Gregory.

Romney/Ryan has no plan. This negative stuff, the only effect that is has is that it makes you personally lose your credibility. Romney/Ryan also, neither of them has a record that they can run on. We know that America is in decline. But we also know that Romney would give us a steeper decline. His expenditures on military will far outspend and uptick that his not yet established plans will bring.

Can you be objective, or are you just wanting any incompetent boob in the White House other than Obama. America is a nation buried in government despotism. Romney makes no efforts to bring us recovery from that. Until you can show at least some insight as to what Romney/Ryan is, & how they’ll help us, I suggest you just meander in your right wing fantasies by yourself.

Libertyinfinite 1 month ago
Darn those type O’s. First paragraph last sentence, “outspend any uptick”, sorry. His spending is insane. & his fixes are none.

There is only one word to describe your article, BULL.
You guys have all the money and talent in the world and all you can show for that is to blame someone else? What a pity! The power of stupidity!

For God’s sake, learn from history, some one who showed up 3+ years ago is to blame for 8 years of mismangement??
Wake up! When will you guys ever learn that blaming someone else for your faults is not going to change anything.

Ah, the wisdom of Solomon.
The original ‘blame bush’ gang whining about being held accountable.
The Chosen One is only responsible for the huge amount of damage he has inflicted in the last 3 1/2 years, and the dark cloud hanging over our economy as a result of past damage and threats of future damage.

Wow, first Bob Woodwards new book putting the blame on Obama for blowing the deal that could have ended the debt crisis that lead to the first U.S. downgrade, and now this!!!

Well, this article is receiving some renewed attention in mid-October. There is nothing in the report that singles out Obama as a cause for concern. The report says the business community distrusts our educational system, our politicians, wasteful government spending, and government relationships with the private sector — none of which can be blamed on Obama any more than any other politician. You could just as easily point the finger at any Republican President as any Democratic President for these concerns. As for the “political disputes” noted in the report, there is no indication of blame for either Republicans or Democrats, so an unbiased point of view would rightly regard that statement as damning toward both sides of the aisle.

Forbes should have disclaimed this article as political propaganda.

DancingRabbit Rabbit
Very few understand why the Founders used the term natural in natural born citizen in the Constitution.
What does Shakespeare mean when he penned “Were all thy children kind and natural?’
What is the meaning of Wordsworth’s “Yearnings to be with my natural kind.”
The question is who are Obama’s natural kind?
A clue is here:
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

The republic is failing due to our blindness to grasp the meaning of natural.
Its so much more than born on a spot of land.

DancingRabbit Rabbit 3 days ago

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]


Ostatnio zmieniony przez palmela dnia Pią 14:34, 19 Paź 2012, w całości zmieniany 1 raz
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum z czterech stron swiata Strona Główna -> Polityka & Ekonomia Wszystkie czasy w strefie EET (Europa)
Strona 1 z 1

Skocz do:  
Możesz pisać nowe tematy
Możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach - załóż własne forum dyskusyjne za darmo
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group