Automotive Holiday Deals Books Holiday Gift Guide Shop Men's Athletic Shoes Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Ty Dolla Sign egg_2015 All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Gifts Under $50 Amazon Gift Card Offer minions minions minions  Amazon Echo $15 Off All-New Fire Kindle Black Friday Deals BestoftheYear Shop Now HTL
Customer Discussions > Going Rogue: An American Life forum

Would Hilary have been a better president than Obama?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 27 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 7, 2011 8:13:16 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
Would Hilary, with her political experience and world relationships, have made a better president than Obama?

Posted on Apr 8, 2011 4:50:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2011 4:51:26 AM PDT
ama says:
"You Betcha" I would have voted for her over McCain (though I didn't vote for McCain or the leaderless one)

Posted on Apr 8, 2011 7:30:01 AM PDT
Thomas Paine says:

Posted on Apr 8, 2011 4:08:14 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
The combination of high oil and gasoline prices, rising food costs, higher health insurance premiums and the likelihood of future inflation has jarred consumer confidence, creating a major crisis for the Obama administration.

The collapse has been sudden and dramatic.

In December, the consumer confidence scale in the Rasmussen Poll stood at 81.7 percent. But in January, euphoria set in. Obama compromised on the George W. Bush tax cuts, the nation seemed to be coming together after the Giffords shooting and a Republican House sat poised to stop any new spending or social experimentation. On Jan. 11, the Rasmussen confidence index rose to 88.3.

Then reality dawned. Unemployment remained persistently high, economic growth was largely stagnant and partisan bickering resumed. The confidence level on Feb. 11 dropped to 84.5.

Then the bottom fell out. The daily Rasmussen polling reflected a drop day after day until, by March 11, the index had fallen to 73.1, its lowest level since it registered a 69 in July of 2009, in the depths of the recession.

The false dawn of January has faded and the hard, cold reality of a likely second recession is setting in. But this recession is accompanied by the likelihood of inflation, a stagflation syndrome that will probably grip America for years. And which will likely take a manmade recession, on the order of 1979-82, to counter it.

Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.

The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world's second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.

Worse, the Fed and the administration are out of tools to help. Interest rates are already at zero. Fiscal stimulus -- the deficit -- already consumes 40 percent of our total government outlays. The Fed is printing money at a ferocious rate under its qualitative easing (QE-2) program. What is left to do?

Only dramatic cuts in the federal deficit, a rollback of regulations that cripple small and community banks, a cancellation of future tax increase plans, a big reduction in federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, freeing manufacturing from the prospect of carbon taxation and unleashing our domestic energy potential can solve our problems. But Obama is not about to undo his legacy of disaster for the American people.

And then there is the longer-term oil and gasoline crisis. Instability in the Middle East is going to mount, not recede. The chances of disruption in Saudi oil supplies and the possibility of an overthrow of the regime (triggered by the best efforts of Iran) will continue to force prices upward. The drag on the economy and the rising consumer discontent in the United States spell further problems for the Obama presidency.

As the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said -- outrageously and wrongly -- about 9/11, "the chickens are coming home to roost." The policies of this administration -- the disastrous overspending, the irresponsible borrowing, the social experimentation -- all are magnifying and amplifying the impact of the recession. Relief is not going to come anytime soon.

Instead, the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.

Posted on Apr 11, 2011 11:52:18 AM PDT
ama says:
No doubt Krugman is a rube..the guy is finally figuring out the man he voted for is a leaderless empty suit..well we welcome him into our club!

"What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn't seem to stand for anything in particular? "

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 8:27:55 AM PDT
Thomas Paine says:
He is a politician spending more time trying to figure out how he can take advantage of his power for his own gain rather than being a statesman.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 11:50:31 AM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
I'm confused: are you talking about Bush, Chaney, Rove or Boehner?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 3:40:47 PM PDT
spookiewon says:
I really don't think 9/11 compares to the earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Firstly, 9/11 was not a "natural disaster," people did it. Secondly, the number of deaths in Japan is shaping up to be an order of magnitude higher (~2900 vs 25,000+) than those of 9/11. It is self-centered on our part to even consider comparing our loss to Japan's.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 3:45:27 PM PDT
spookiewon says:
Probably. I certainly supported her over Obama in the Iowa caucus. I did shift support to Obama when it became clear Clinton would not win the nomination. It's very hard to say, though, after the fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 7:17:23 PM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
spooky: I think she has garnered a pretty good track record over the past few years. If Obama were to get her to climb on board the election train, then I think re-election would be reassured. That said, she's been doing her best to to convince us all that she's ready to leave the political arena for good in 2012. Of course, people do change their minds, and she would be the first woman in the White House.

Posted on Apr 17, 2011 1:44:21 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
FB....are you confused about the question? It is, basically pretty simple, would Hillary have made a better President than Obama?

Posted on Apr 17, 2011 4:51:13 PM PDT
ama says:
Waybert..the reason he didn't answer is pretty simple..he can't admit that the slogan man sucks as president!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2011 8:35:44 PM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
The only way to know if she would have been a better president is if she actually became president. If you think either way, what do you have to base your rationale on? You can bad mouth Obama all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you think the average American has more faith in the Republican party than they do him....unless, of course, they're the average rich American.

Posted on Apr 17, 2011 8:41:01 PM PDT
ama says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2011 5:45:12 AM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
Poor ama. You're heading toward a brick wall at 100 mph.

Posted on Apr 18, 2011 6:57:01 AM PDT
ama says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2011 11:19:19 AM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
No, actually it's Boehner (or "Boner," as Bush used to call him) and the Republican party.

Posted on Apr 20, 2011 5:12:27 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 20, 2011 6:01:09 PM PDT
ama says:
The truth has already come in elections..since 09 through the Wisconsin election a few weeks ago (remember Prosser was behind at least 500000 votes just in state workers include the private sector union workers the number goes higher) the Democrats have felt the shellacking from the American People.

The polls from the water carriers/ mouthpieces/ minions (the so called media) have tried to keep the leaderless one above water..unsuccessfully (I have debunked 1 poll for F. Bluhm which was the latest Washington post..ABC which they tried to add 10 PERCENT more D's then R's.. the next one is Marist which was 8 PERCENT more D's then R's..both parties are even at 33% party affiliation) yet as of today even with all those phony polls..

RCP Poll Average
President Obama Job Approval

45.3 Approve 50.0 Disapprove

RCP Poll Average
Direction of Country

26.6 Right Direction 66.0 Wrong Track

Independents+Seniors+Republicans+ Democrats (that are not part of the face and base of the Democrat Party..the face and base is Liberals, progressives, socialists, communists ) EQUALS a shellacking that will make 10 look like a walk in the park!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 7:55:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 21, 2011 7:45:11 AM PDT
F. Bluhm says:
Ah, Paul Ryan. His much-hyped budget plan is a fantasy document, it's never going to happen. If you're going to put out a fantasy document that appeals to your base, shouldn't it at least accomplish the goal? It doesn't come close to solving the deficit or the debt. It says it right in the document. He's said himself - "It's not a budget, it's a cause," which should be flagged right away by the Democrats as being the wrong way to look at this. No, it's not a cause, it is a budget, that's how we should look at it and it's how we should solve these things. But the problem is that we don't have one party that stands up to the other side, we have two parties who are agreeing that we should cut from the EPA and people who do the inspections of food and Pell grants and home heating oil for the poor, and nobody is standing up and saying we should take it from the defense department, from foreign subsidies, from tax cuts for the rich, for corporations like GE that paid no taxes last year. That's what's wrong with our political system.

 I find it hard to believe that people keep calling Paul Ryan "courageous." Really? Courageous would have been going after defense and farm subsidies and corporations and rich people. His budget doesn't do any of that. It goes after children, the poor, the jobless, the people who had the least and could least defend themselves, who had no lobbyists, this is courageous? This is picking on the weakest, smallest kid on the playground and getting called courageous for it.

Posted on May 24, 2011 12:19:28 AM PDT
J. Maust says:
Would Hilary have been a better president than Obama?

Buddy would have been a better president than Obama, if that car hadn't run over him.

Posted on May 24, 2011 9:24:17 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
I just wish the President would "do" or "try" something different, instead of following the Bush economic policies over the 2009-2011 period. Bush thought an infusion of federal monies would help the economy recover after the meltdown in October 2008, but it had no effect whatsoever. President Obama, sadly, has continued to believe that he can manipulate the economy for better by continuing the Bush economic policies. Sadly, as we have seen over the last two years, things have got worse and not better. There comes a point, you hope, when elected officials will see the light and change from policies that are not working to new policies that may work. Who knows if new policies will work? But it is a fact, now going on for nearly four years, if you include Bush's two bad economic years (2007-2008), that the Bush-Obama infusion policies are not working. Government policies don't really contribute to job growth in our country, but bad government economic policies can and do have bad effects on all Americans. It is really sad that President Obama doesn't have any job experience in the private-job sector....a job at McDonald's at some point in his past would have done a world of good!

Posted on Jun 7, 2011 8:30:03 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
The country, as the new figures show, added just 54,000 jobs in May. Even more depressing is the fact that half of these jobs came from a single employer--McDonald's.

For thought: Remember that restaurants always staff up for the summer, and this means that McD will be laying these 25,000 to 30,000 people off after the end of the summer season.

There is a case, however, to be made for the benefit of fast-food restaurant employment, but it's obviously not the foundation for sustained, long-term economic growth.

Still, I had a hard time with the President trying hard and taking credit for creating these jobs at McDonald's of all places. Michelle, with her government-approved plate, must be having a coronary right about now.

What are we to think of the President's economic plans and a real unemployment rate of 15.8 percent? Republicans might have the wrong answers. They usually do....But what exactly has this administration done right the last two years? What creative ideas have they offered to fix our economic problems? How many alternative realities (you know, "things could have been worse," or "it is Bush's fault") do we have to accept? Fact is, while these condescending technocrats accuse their opponents of being nihilists, ideologues and radicals, they are the ones that refuse to deviate from dogma no matter how much evidence of economic failure confronts them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2011 5:36:38 AM PDT
Thomas Paine says:
Unfortunately, the media will not allow the Republicans to run on..."it is Obama's fault".

Posted on Jun 27, 2011 9:40:27 PM PDT
Waybert17 says:
I was just thinking, maybe Lisa can do some "thinking" here, that America has become an aristocracy, ruled by people who believe they are better than the rest of us--and steal our money in the process. But unlike the landed nobility and robber barons of old, these new aristocrats are government workers, politicians and other "public servants" who find new ways to enrich themselves every day--at our expense.

This explains why Al Gore's "public service" has given him a net worth of over $100-million dollars.

Or...before Obama's election only one employee at the Federal Department of Transportation earned $170,000; a year later nearly 1,700 did!

This plundering of America continues with public sector workers making 1.5 to 2 times more as their private sector colleagues who perform the same jobs--and that's not counting the generous benefits and leave arrangements that public sector workers receive from the pockets of taxpayers.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  6
Total posts:  27
Initial post:  Apr 7, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 26, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Going Rogue: An American Life
Going Rogue: An American Life by Sarah Palin (Hardcover - November 17, 2009)
4.0 out of 5 stars (1,624)