Why can't the media call it like they see it?

[Rath]

HappySqurriel said:

Crashdown77 said:
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Why can't the media call it like I see it?"

Fairly off topic: I have a question for Mafoo and Squirrel, since you are both pretty negative on Obama. Do you think that this is all attributable to him? I mean should this have all swung around in 8 months if his programs were going to work? Can we call him a failure already? I've found that the ecomony swings pretty much up and down almost regardless of who is in charge and the administration can only affect the lengths and depths of the lows and heights of the highs, but those swings are MUCH longer than 8 months long. I need help on what we're thinking he has failed at so far.

The problems we're facing today have little to do with Obama, and he has almost no ability to prevent them or lessen them, they're caused by decades of the government being overly involved in the economy and being unable to understand that a free market that isn't hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load will correct itself.

The problems will will face in a couple years will have a lot to do with Obama because few economies can perform well when they're hampered by high taxes, high inflation, rampant corruption and a large debt load which (with the exception of corruption which hasn't changed much) have all been made dramatically worse by Obama.

And economies suffering from a depression suffer even worse. It is entirely plausible that without the stimulus and the financial sector being bailed out (especially Fannie and Freddie) that the economy would have nose-dived far worse than it did.

Edit: @Mafoo. A lot of Europe already has the benefits that both provide. Social democracy is a valid philosophy.