?
Solved

If Palin had been president from 2008 unil now...

Posted on 2012-08-24
24
Medium Priority
?
40 Views
Last Modified: 2012-09-05
Would we be better off?

I emphatically say yes and am more than willing to do defend my position.

What do you think?
0
Comment
Question by:EricLynnWright
  • 9
  • 4
  • 4
  • +4
24 Comments
 
LVL 18

Assisted Solution

by:WaterStreet
WaterStreet earned 40 total points
ID: 38330090
No.

"What do you think?"  I think everyone would be complaining about the same poor economy brought on by Bush and Palin's administration's inability to combat it.  They would insist on a change from 12 years of Republicans' mishandling of the economy.


You say "I emphatically say yes and am more than willing to do defend my position."
Can you defend your position by describing what a Palin administration would do differently, instead of just talking about Obama?
0
 
LVL 17

Assisted Solution

by:Anthony Russo
Anthony Russo earned 40 total points
ID: 38330434
>>I emphatically say yes and am more than willing to do defend my position.

No surprise there as you would think any Republican will be better than any Democrat. This statement could have nothing to do with Palin/Obama, though I honestly believe you do feel the same because of who the individuals are.

 I honestly don't think we would be better or worse off. We would just be in a different situation. Instead of higher deficit and more spending, we would have more disparity and less advancement. Not one situation is better or worse than the other. Just different.

No matter who is in office, we will never have a country happy with it. Always will be the divide.
0
 
LVL 2

Accepted Solution

by:
Tlingit earned 40 total points
ID: 38330487
I think everyone would be complaining about the same poor economy brought on by Bush and Palin's administration's inability to combat it.

Bush's failed economy?  I think not.  The financial melt down started way before Bush came into office.  It started back when Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act that forced lending institutions to give loans to people who couldn't afford to buy a home.  Reagan and Bush 1 ignored the act, which was wise, and didn't enforce it.  It was only when Clinton was in office that he went to the banks and told them to start following this law.  He started putting real pressure on them in 1998 and 1999.

When Bush 2 came on the scene, the housing bubble started its slow burst and he went to congress on several occasions to tell them we had to deal with this before it gets out of hand.  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were pushing Bernie May and Freddie Mac take over, blocked a lot of key initiatives that could have corrected the problem before the housing bubble busted.

Sarah Palin never would have been president, but to entertain this question, yes, I beleive we would be a lot better off if she was president.  Here are my reasons why:

Sarah would not have passed Heathcare.
Two ties in with one because if she wouldn't have passed healthcare, she would have concentrated on the economy to fix it, which is something this current president should have done.  If Obama would have came into office with the mind set of fixing the economy, we would be a lot better off right now, and his second term would not be in jeopardy.  Then he could have passed healthcare and all of his socialistic/communism agenda.
I also think she would have approached the issue the way Reagan approached his 1st term in office.  Obama likes to go around saying he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.  But we must remember Reagan inherited a far worse recession from Carter.  Reagan faced 10% unemployment, while Obama started with 7.6% unemployment, so in essence he didn't inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression, therefore he has been lying to the American people.

Reagan came in and did just opposite of Carter; he is now considered one the greatest presidents in modern times.

Prediction.  If Romney is elected, he will do opposite of what Obama has done thus far.  Because of this, he will turn the economy around and he will go down in history as a great presidents.  This is what liberals and progressives are scared of most.  Because if Romney does turn the economy around, the liberals will loose a lot of power for many years, just like what happened after Jimmy Carter.

The American people like our freedom too much to be ruled by a dictator.
0
New feature and membership benefit!

New feature! Upgrade and increase expert visibility of your issues with Priority Questions.

 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38330516
>>Because if Romney does turn the economy around, the liberals will loose a lot of power for many years, just like what happened after Jimmy Carter.

First it doesn't matter if the economy turns or doesn't unless congress also is all republican. If there is any problem with the economy, the party in the white house blames congress. If there is success, the party in the white house takes credit. Same is true in the opposite direction.

Good example is Clinton and his good budget which the Republicans always say was because of Newt in Congress.

Second. How did the democrats lose a lot of power after Carter? Republicans had one guy win and then his VP for one term. Then a Democrat got back in for two terms. Hardly a domination by the Republicans.
0
 
LVL 29

Assisted Solution

by:leonstryker
leonstryker earned 36 total points
ID: 38330618
>>Would we be better off?

I am not sure.

Imagine Palin in office with a Democratically controlled Congress. TARP would still have gone through. There would not have been stimulous or healthcare, but she still would have 2 wars on her hands and an economy in shambles. Everything would depend on what the midterm election would have brought, and I am not sure the Tea Party would have formed.

The Democrats would have maintained their majority, if not increased (as is typical in the none presidencial election cycle). I am just not sure what she would have been able to do under these conditions.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 38330748
I think what we are missing here is a persons ability to adjust as president.  All good leaders need to do this.  I do not agree with Clinton's politics, but he was a good politician because he was able to adjust and work with the cards that were dealt to him, which was a Republican controlled congress at that time.  The same with Reagan.  Reagan worked well with Tip O'Neal.  Clinton had to move center right, which he did.  But he was a governor of Arkansas, which during his time as governor had to work with opposite sides, so when he was president he knew how to work with Republicans.

Obama, on the other hand, had no experience prior to being president like Clinton did.  Obama will not adjust and never will, and that is why he has to go.  Hillary, I think, would have adjusted as well.  She would have been a better president then Obama.  If Obama is willing to adjust to the center, because we are a center right country, like Clinton, I think we would have had a lot different outcome.  And like I said he could have easily passed Heatlhcare with a better economy.  He had his priorities mixed and still does.

Imagine Palin in office with a Democratically controlled Congress. TARP would still have gone through. There would not have been stimulous or healthcare, but she still would have 2 wars on her hands and an economy in shambles. Everything would depend on what the midterm election would have brought, and I am not sure the Tea Party would have formed.

Leon brings up a good point.  A lot of it would have to deal with leadership.  Is the person willing to work with opposite sides?  Obama shut the door on republicans the first two years in office, so he didn't work with them.  He passed the stimulas and healthcare during this time.  When Republicans took power in 2010 in the House, he hasn't been able to work with them on anything.  Bill Clinton was able to but Obama can't.  Two different leadership styles, two different outcomes.
0
 
LVL 84

Assisted Solution

by:Dave Baldwin
Dave Baldwin earned 8 total points
ID: 38330802
First, the assumption that Palin would still be President is probably wrong.  I think that just like she did as governor of Alaska, she would have quit half-way thru because people were being mean to her...
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38330830
Very well stated Tlingit. Also very surprising to hear such positivity to Clinton, a democrat.

What I ask is do you think Palin would have shown the ability to adapt. She honestly seems to much leaning towards the Tea Party side to be able to work with a democratic Congress. In essence, she is to the right as Obama is to the left.

Thoughts?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 38331059
The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants.  Their stand is simple: Less Government, fiscal contraint and responsibility, and lower taxes.  Who would disagree with this?

We need less government.  Why do we need a government that controls every aspect of our lives?  The reason for the Revolutionary War was to break free from England, who was ruled by King George.  And now everything America stood for is heading down a path to serfdom to an all powerful government.
It makes sense to have a budget, I have a budget, why shouldn't the government have a budget.
Lower taxes.  Why should I pay more in taxes if the government is going to waste my hard earned money?  If the government didn't waste the taxpayer money like on Solyndra, GSA, and Healthcare (50 new taxes next year), then people would be more likely pay more.
The mainstream media paints the Tea Party as extreme, with extreme ideas.  Is it really extreme believe what I just outlined above?

On the other hand the mainstream media loves the OWS movement.

How did we as a country get so far off track?  Do we no longer know what it means to be self sufficient, or to have fiscal responsibility anymore?  These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country?  Our moral compass as a country is no longer working if we embrace this to be the case.

Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington.  I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad.  One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules.  Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules?  Probably.  Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office.  Would she have adjusted?  Probably.  I think this question would remain unanswered.  I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisors.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38331096
>>The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, don't you? The Tea Party is heavily dominated by Republicans.

>>Why should I pay more in taxes if the government is going to waste my hard earned money?  If the government didn't waste the taxpayer money like on Solyndra, GSA, and Healthcare (50 new taxes next year), then people would be more likely pay more.

I believe this actually is in contradiction of the Tea Party principles. Less taxes isn't because the government is wasting the money. Tea Party principles are less taxes is because people should keep more of what they earn.

>>These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country?

I'm sorry, I missed the mass amount of media coverage that specifically said these were ideal things to be doing during a movement?

>>Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington.  I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad.  One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules.  Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules?  Probably.  Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office.  Would she have adjusted?  Probably.  I think this question would remain unanswered.  I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisers.

That is EXACTLY what Barack Obama sold in 2008. New blood and new ideas and not working with the old Washington rules. Reaching across the aisle. Everything he promised is what you feel should be done by someone to be a good leader. Now many believed he would do these things and he got elected. Do you have any history of Palin that shows she would have stuck to these ideals or would it just have to be her word as a politician?
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 38331102
What I ask is do you think Palin would have shown the ability to adapt. She honestly seems to much leaning towards the Tea Party side to be able to work with a democratic Congress. In essence, she is to the right as Obama is to the left.

That's the key question, and the answer is .... who the heck knows.

They are diametrically opposed now, but would they have been if she was in office? Obama did not have to work with Republicans the first two years and that solidified both his and the opposing sides. She may have been able to work with the Democrats more since it would have been obvious that she could not do anything without them.

In a way Obama's presidency radicalized both their positions. The reverse may not have happened.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38331115
>>The reverse may not have happened.

Or it may. I agree who the heck knows.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 38331119
The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants.  Their stand is simple: Less Government, fiscal contraint and responsibility, and lower taxes.  Who would disagree with this?

I disagree. It is composed of Fiscal Libertarians. Most Democrats and many Republicans disagree with them on many if not all issues.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:Tlingit
ID: 38331168
Most Democrats and many Republicans disagree with them on many if not all issues.

The breakdown of the Tea Party in parties.

57% Republican
28% Independent
13% Democrat

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

The point is the mainstream media paints them as extreme right wing conservatives, so people believe they are racist and really don't understand what they actually stand for.  Obviously there will be more Republicans involved in this movement because it aligns with their belief system.  But as you can see there are Democrats and Independents in this movement.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38331193
>>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

...according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group.

Sketchy coming from a Republican-leaning firm as it would be helpful to them to show that it is not overrun with Republicans, so there is an agenda.

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people -- said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.

Apparently they are not very good at math either since 17% of 1000 = 170. How did they get that it is over 500?

Tea Party members are more likely to be male, slightly older and middle income. Almost half the members of the group reported getting their news about national issues from Fox News, 10 percent of respondents said that talk radio is one of their top two sources, which is seven-points higher than the average voter.

That all sounds about right, or maybe skewed to be a bit less.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:beetos
beetos earned 36 total points
ID: 38331852
This is so funny - Obama and the Democrats constantly add things to bills to get Republican buy in, and it still isn't enough.  Republicans seem to think compromise means doing everything Republicans want and f^ck the Democrats.   The Republican mantra since Obama has been elected has been to oppose Obama.    If Obama rescued a Republican from a burning building,  the next day, said Republican and  Limbaugh and Coulter (and of course, the rest of the party would fall in line) would be yammering on about how Obama is cozying up to the Firemans union!

Polls show that most Americans were  unsatisfied with "Obamacare" but not why - those on the right think it went too far while those on the left think it didn't go far enough.   The same with the stimulus.    Obama is clearly in the center trying to bring both sides to common ground to fix a problem that affects all of us.  

The Republican opposition has been un-Presidented.    That is, no President has faced a constant filibustering opposition party like Obama has faced.  Yet Repubs/conservatives claim it's Obama who hasn't reached across the aisle.  

With the ascension of the Tea Party, even the Republicans can't get a compromise within their own party.  Hence, the downgrading of America's credit rating ( also un-Presidented)

Palin would have only fueled the Tea Party's resentment toward working together to solve common problems.    The global economic calamity not only wouldn't have been averted, it would have been enhanced.   Prohibiting abortion without exception would have been a higher priority than giving access to health insurance coverage.

It will be interesting in 20 years to look back and see how history judges Obama and Palin.
0
 
LVL 3

Author Comment

by:EricLynnWright
ID: 38331981
>>It will be interesting in 20 years to look back and see how history judges Obama and Palin.


We can look right now and see how they're judging him.  

#1 at the box office

2016
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:WaterStreet
ID: 38332195
"We need less government.  Why do we need a government that controls every aspect of our lives?"

Right  -:))   A government small enough to fit in your uterus.
0
 
LVL 3

Author Comment

by:EricLynnWright
ID: 38340913
Speaker at this year's Democratic National Convention:

Sarah Palin more qualified to be president than Barack Obama
Source
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38340965
A guy who was a Republican in 2008 saying that a fellow Republican running for VP had more qualification than the Democrat that is running against them? In what way is this unique at all?

After the election he leaves the Republican party and goes Independent. Now he is speaking at the DNC.

It looks like you are just showcasing someone who lost faith in his Republican party.
0
 
LVL 3

Author Comment

by:EricLynnWright
ID: 38341119
Are you shooting the messenger or the message?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38341232
I'm questioning the messenger on the importance/uniqueness/relevance of the message.
0
 
LVL 3

Author Comment

by:EricLynnWright
ID: 38367856
If Palin were president...

1.  We wouldn't have added $6 trillion in new debt in 3.5 years
2.  We wouldn't have 83% of doctors considering leaving the profession.
4.  Wouldn't have a health law that adds $340 billion to the deficit
5.  Wouldn't have the government owning a car company at the expense of billions to the tax payer
6.  We wouldn't have the government pushing subprime loans.
7.  We wouldn't have tax dollars going to the RESEARCH OF HARD ONS.
8.  The Black Panthers would have been prosecuted
9.  Oil supply would be greater

( I can go all day)
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 38367891
>>( I can go all day)

Easy to say what would/wouldn't have happened when there is no fact and it is purely your psychic powers to predict the alternate path that she would have took.

Maybe she would have tripped down the steps at the white house on day one and had no effect. Nobody knows.

(I wish no harm to anyone. Just an example.)
0

Featured Post

[Webinar] Cloud and Mobile-First Strategy

Maybe you’ve fully adopted the cloud since the beginning. Or maybe you started with on-prem resources but are pursuing a “cloud and mobile first” strategy. Getting to that end state has its challenges. Discover how to build out a 100% cloud and mobile IT strategy in this webinar.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
Look below the covers at a subform control , and the form that is inside it. Explore properties and see how easy it is to aggregate, get statistics, and synchronize results for your data. A Microsoft Access subform is used to show relevant calcul…
When cloud platforms entered the scene, users and companies jumped on board to take advantage of the many benefits, like the ability to work and connect with company information from various locations. What many didn't foresee was the increased risk…
Suggested Courses

864 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question