Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe
 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html

Pretty optimistic article regarding the economy... definitely made me think. It does seem as though people are making this seem like a much bigger deal than it is which decreases consumer confidence and eventually hurts the economy even worse then it should.

I don't watch or listen to his speeches. People gassed him up as some great orator and it has gotten way out of hand.

I wish they could make him do Powerpoint presentations with the main points and less rhetoric and dramatic speech.

Geesh.

Anybody who says that this is, or is going to be, equivalent to the Great Depression clearly isn't paying attention. At the same time, an important fact to keep in mind is that we aren't at the worst point of this particular recession yet, so it's useless to be comparing statistics right now. This recession will certainly last longer than the one in '81-82, and numbers are probably going to continue getting worse. (It's still too early to see which will end up worse than the '81-82 statistics and which ones won't.) Recovery will probably take longer too. A lot of the problems contributing to our current recession are more complicated than those in previous ones, and will require more intensive fixes in order to avoid long-term damage to the economy--and in that sense, it has more in common with the Great Depression than, say, the recession of the early 80s. But they'll be thematically similar, not similar in degree.

Especially if the press and the administration keep telling us they will.

Things are not good. Further nationalizing - first banks, now medical records, and whatever's next - and government pork are not the answer. But they can't get the American people to bow down without convincing those taxpayers there is nothing else to do.

LOL It's funny when hateration rears its ugly head.

Just glancing at the article, I really hope they are not accusing Obama of fearmongering. Certainly not after this last administration...Not to mention that people all across the board have been saying the same thing they are accusing him of saying. Why try to single him out? Hypocritical much?

Good job.

There's enough fearmongering to go around. This is an article about politics (and the media) and the presentation of the current economic recession, as well the historical comparisons being made. Obama is the current POTUS who is making a lot of statements to the American public. So this article would be about him.

Were the same things being said and written before he became POTUS? Yes. Have other people made several statements to the American public concerning this economy? Yes. So this isn't unique to him.

Good grief, some Obama supporters are way too sensitive.

People think the game has changed just because Obama is POTUS. Presidents are almost never the first and only one to say things. The same goes for many of the things Bush was blamed for. Being POTUS means that you have a powerful and unique platform. Presidents' words and actions are scrutinized much more because they have a much bigger impact. That's how it has always been so Obama doesn't get treated with kiddie gloves.

Don't you think the scale is unique to him?

Perhaps.

However BO was elected on his profound message of change. Not being Bush is not good enough any more.

How are medical records being nationalized?

LOL, it's cute when people chalk up criticism of their favorite politician as "hateration." There are lots of smart, well-educated people who disagree with certain things Obama has done, and who aren't big fans of his policies. That's not "hateration," it's life.

When the person you support gets elected, you kind of have to realize that he's going to be open to criticism. As noted, he's being singled out because he's the President...."the buck stops here" and all of that good stuff. Just because you support the guy's policies and statements doesn't mean everyone else does

Also, as Cooramor noted, just because he's "not Bush" doesn't all of a sudden make everything he does positive. At some point a Presidency has to stand on its own, not in comparison to the work of others.

Exactly. Every President has members of Congress, political pundits, and experts in the various fields who agree with his policies and vocally support them. But, at the end of the day, if people have concerns, or if things don't work out, it's not the political pundits, experts, or even members of Congress who will get the brunt of the criticism or blame; it's going to be the President.

??

I was more commenting on the office of President (specifically the current sitting President) . . . actually I think we more agree than disagree, so I have no clue about the "however" portion, or how this affects the specific topic in the OP. I'm confused.

Where is this point? Is it before the first 30 days that a presidency should stand on its own? Not many presidencies stand on their own and not in comparison to others. Obama/Bush. Bush/Clinton. etc. Those that do stand on their own (and even these are debatable) are typically Presidencies that happened during extreme situations. (ex: Lincoln & FDR)


FEAR MONGERING: spreading discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension.

^ This is the definition of fear mongering that I usually use. As per this definition I would not claim that President Obama is a fear mongerer. The information he has spread about the economy is not particularly discreditable nor is it misrepresentative of the situation. The purpose of telling the American people about the economy doesn't seem to be to induce fear. It seems to be to increase the spread of information and to educate the general public. As far as the great depression goes. It is possible. The great depression happened because of a stock market crash and because the American people withdrew from the financial sector. If, today, people started to withdraw all of their money from the banks, the credit system fails, the dollar becomes worthless that would cause great depression # 2. Though it may seem farfetched and scary to many people the fact of the matter is that the dollar only has value because we think/say it does. If enough people are unemployed and have lost trust in the "system" we could see a major failure. Pointing this fact out isn't trying to incite fear. It's trying to keep history from repeating itself. At the current rate I do not believe that the American people will lose faith in or stop trusting the "system", but that does not matter much if these people have no money and no understanding of what is going on. Worst case=Great depression. Best Case=Happiness and free rainbows for all!

I agree with your point to a certain extent, and I should have clarified my own point a bit better. You're correct in that, in many ways, Presidencies are judged based on comparisons to others; how did this President deal with this situation as opposed to previous Presidents, etc.

My main point is that what you hear from some Obama supporters is "Well, you can't criticize Pres. Obama because Pres. Bush was terrible." I think that's where the comparisons have to stop; we can't give Obama a free pass because of the perceived shortcomings of the Bush presidency.