Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5508
Reputation: 276.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject: Globe: Obama the better candidate to lead to real recovery Reply with quote

I present this as an example of the quality of journalism and political thinking that goes on at the Globe & Mail, supposedly one of Canada's premier newspapers. I suspect that reputation rests more on their wine coverage than world affairs.

They feel that it's Obama based on what he's done to the American economy!!!

Despite flaws, Obama is the better candidate to lead real recovery

Set aside any warm feelings for President Barack Obama and his admirable personal story, and any preconceptions about the Republican challenger Mitt Romney and his enviable personal story. The United States’ presidential election is fundamentally about one issue: the economy. The question for U.S. voters is, Who can best reduce public spending and lead a robust recovery?

Less than four years ago, when Mr. Obama succeeded a Republican president, the United States appeared to be at the edge of the abyss. It was facing economic collapse at home, and fighting two costly wars abroad.

His policies, including massive stimulus spending, helped to arrest the deterioration, and to put the country on the path of recovery, albeit gradually. New job figures released on Friday show that employers added 171,000 people to their payrolls in October, a higher than expected figure and further evidence of a slow but sustained recovery.

Mr. Obama also ended U.S. involvement in Iraq and has signalled the end to its involvement in Afghanistan.

Jay-zuzzz, I just can't sit still anymore. Didn't anyone notice that the war in Iraq was won when Obama took over, and he's well on his way to losing it? Or that he's now involved in four or five undeclared wars right now ... that he's upped the war, and lost it, in Afghanistan. And what was the Libya adventure about? Why? Why? Why?

Would they give Obama a Peace Prize now?

Secondly, the US has to produce 300,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth. Obama isn't 'creating' jobs at a rate that anything resembling a recovery, which would mean 500,000 jobs a month are being 'created'.

In this election, Mr. Obama has set out a moderate agenda that would use a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to tame the country’s vast debt. He has promised, in time, also to reduce corporation taxes. If re-elected, Mr. Obama must help shift the emphasis from government stimulus to a private-sector-led phase of growth. Public spending at current levels is not sustainable, and is verging on catastrophic. The proportion of deficit to GDP has declined, but much more work needs to be done.

Sure, Barrack Obama, noted financial wiz ... is going to cut expenses!!! Modest agenda? He has the most far-reaching agenda imagineable. He's swallowing the whole medical apparatus of the US, 16% of the economy, whole -- pretty ambitious, that. That'll sure be a cost-saving measure.

What good does an improving GDP/deficit ratio -- if its true -- if you're borrowing 1.2 $trillion a year to keep the whole ball of wax going?

There are doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to find bipartisan support for his plan. This is in large part the responsibility of hard-line Republicans in the House of Representatives, but it is also the fault of Mr. Obama, who has been aloof and ineffectual in his dealings with his political opponents. He is the poster president for failed bipartisanship – this in contrast to the post-partisanism he advocated in the 2008 election.

Cough, cough ... my God ... this is one of those bits of propaganda that one wishes our pundits had the foresight to see past. The truth is the Democrats, Obama in charge, rammed through their Obamacare package before the members of Congress could even read it! Ditto with stimulus/patronage package. Then, when the public rebelled, and the Tea Party dished Obama up one of the biggest mid-term reversals in American political history, he simply started throwing accusations around, and trying to trap the Republicans into calling for austerity, the theory being that he would burn the Republicans in hell for being so short of compassion.

The Republicans aren't innocent, for sure, and we all recognize that the solution is a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts. But they got burned the last time, when Reagan OK'd tax increases under the understanding that spending would be cut twice as much as the tax increases. George Bush Sr. also suffered defeat because he was trapped by Congress into signing on to increased taxes. The Democrats whole strategy, over the past two years, has been to try to force the Republicans to introduce spending cuts, and then to lambaste them when they do.

Bi-partisanship be damned. The editors of the Globe are a dim lot who don't seem to be paying much attention to events as they unfold.

Sleepwalking into a budget stalemate would invite disaster for a country with economic challenges of the kind that is facing the United States. If re-elected, Mr. Obama must do a much better job coaxing, cajoling, charming and arm-twisting. Mr. Romney has overstated his record of successful bipartisan agreements during his time as governor of Massachusetts, but in the short term he is much more likely to be able to work with a Republican-dominated House.

The one thing we know is that Obama doesn't work with the leadership of his own party that well, but it's impossible for him to work cooperatively with Republicans because the Republicans main issue is the debt and deficit, as it projects into the future.

The very best way to get continued gridlock in Congress is to elect Barrack Obama to a second term. Is that hard to understand?

Unfortunately, Mr. Romney’s own plan does not add up. His fiscal and economic program has some gaping holes, especially with respect to “tax expenditures,” that is, his proposed elimination of unspecified tax deductions, which will not suffice to do what he promises.

What's Obama's plan? He hasn't got one that anyone can believe. He hasn't even had a budget for three years! (How can Congress offer checks and balances if there is no budget?) Both of the parties put this airy-fairy proposal out there to fool the public. The two of them are a wash on this point.

More importantly, it would be impossible to maintain the armed forces on a war-time footing, now that the Iraq mission has ended and the U.S. military role in Afghanistan is winding down, and also deal with the country’s ruinous levels of debt. The country cannot afford the military it has, yet Mr. Romney’s plan would add $2-trillion over 10 years. This is 35 per cent higher than Mr. Obama’s plan, which would protect but not add to military budgets, while keeping pace with inflation. Only an imminent threat of war could justify the heavy expenditure Mr. Romney advocates.

We also know that Mr. Obama exhibits the tolerance America needs, at home and abroad. Mr. Romney, through the nomination and presidential campaigns, has attached himself to some unreasonable positions, from defunding Planned Parenthood to a provocative pledge to declare China a currency manipulator. Mr. Obama, by contrast, has advocated a more generous America, defending illegal immigrants against punitive laws and supporting same-sex marriage.

This just leaves me sputtering ... were any of these sexual things even issues in the campaign? Is the Globe really going to support the most failed President since Buchanan on the basis of his tolerance of homosexuals? Even when Obama wasn't too hot on same sex marriage either, as I recall.

But this is the real issue of the election for the Globe. Homosexual rights ... you can't say that the Globe doesn't advance its employees interests ....

Most notably, in their first debate, Mr. Romney failed to convincingly differentiate his own health-care program in Massachusetts from the great achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency, the so-called Obamacare.[

I guess that means Romney lost the first debate? Only in the Globe's eyes. Anyone who is certain it'll be cheaper if its government run isn't really following. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr.....-cost-you/

Both candidates have expressed great concern for the middle class, but the current President’s health-care reform is a fundamentally conservative measure (on what planet? Bugs) which will prevent uninsured people in the middle class from being pauperized by huge medical bills, and from sinking into the underclass – or trying to do without necessary, even life-saving medical treatment. It achieves this, while leaving ample room for employment-based health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid – the mix that has evolved in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s.

Obamacare should not be repealed, as Mr. Romney and the congressional Republicans have pledged to do.[

This is full of misinformation, probably right from the Democratic Party handout. Obamacare fundamentally does nothing to control the escalating costs of medicine, which is the real problem. It attempts to include the 'poor' by redistributing income.

In fact. the clumsily inept introduction of government medicine has acted as possibly the biggest drag on new job growth in the private sector. Nobody knows how much it will end up costing down the road.

In spite of his own merits, Mr. Romney’s program has unsettling elements of adventurism. Mr. Obama has his flaws, too, but, with his steady hand, he has the better chance of enabling and leading a real recovery of the economy of the United States.

Well ... the Globe editor refuse to see that the Democrats can't address the increasing debt of the nation. because they can't envision a smaller state. All their cuts come from the military ... which idealists might applaud for some strange reason ... whereas it is the entitlements that are the bigger problem.

This editorial is so-oo bad, and reveals so much ignorance that we should recognize that the paper is in the hands of incompetent people who are more interested in patio furniture than real news.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8412
Reputation: 282.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the Globe and Mail is so liberal its not really surpising they'd write such an article it be more of a surprise if they didn't . obvivously they wanted obama to win . most canadian media has been extremly pro democrat since at least when Bill Clinton was first elected in the 90's

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5508
Reputation: 276.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good point ... I agree. I am not shocked to see the Globe come down on that side of the cultural divide. A little surprised, but not shocked.

What bothers me most is the assumptions behind their judgements.

I don't imagine anybody as informed as that group ought to be could possibly really believe that 171,000 new jobs means a recovery is underway.

Don't judge by Canada -- Americans are losing the equity in their homes, and the jobs seem to be disappearing. We tend to underestimate how precarious things are for millions in the USA and the EU.

In fact, Obama's economic stewardship and Obamacare were two of the things that Americans most dislike about his administration.

The editors of the national newspaper should know better than to put out this drivel. It's embarrassing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Globe: Obama the better candidate to lead to real recovery

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB