|
Hey guys, so for the few times I get into political discussions with my friends, it is usually about Obama. The original Obama fervor the circled around the U.S. has died down, and a large amount of people who I've talked to have turned their hatred to him. They believed he would fix the war and the economy which he hasn't so far.
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done.
So I ask you TL, what has Obama done so far? People love announcing their misinformed opinion about the current political situation, but I find that they have nothing to back it up. What do you guys feel about Obama?
|
I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+.
|
Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
|
I feel that he is certainly well-educated and values academic learning. And his personality is less of a punchline than George Bush's. He's also got a great body.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
He's fine. Certainly much better than Bush. And he has probably achieved more legislative breakthroughs than almost any other president in the history of US.
|
On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote: I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+.
i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes.
EDIT: and people are prob mad because:
1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations....
But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more.
**and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off**
|
He passed the healthcare bill. Major plus if you ask me.
|
Soldiers have been recalled. I believe insurance (health) will be available to us all in couple years. not too sure either
|
On October 10 2010 08:02 Kezzer wrote:
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done.
Call me ignorant and unlearned, but how is not settling the war and getting the economy back in shape not failure of policy, even if many things aren't his fault? Not to support Bush, but a lot of things that he failed at just weren't directly his fault either. Still, though, we associate things with our president because the executive really does have THAT much power and influence.
From what I have seen, the Health Care bill has done absolutely nothing. He's wrecking the future of the Space program by driving it in a completely different direction. The bailout for the big corporations would have been better spent by just giving every American a share of that money.
I am glad that he played along with the damage control for the oil spill, though.
Obama was the better option than any chance of Palin being second-in-line for President, but I feel like McCain would have been more effective as President.
|
People will always blame the politicians. Seems to me he was a damn sight better than the other options and the previous few presidents. At least speaking skill implies intelligence, in which people like palin were clearly lacking
|
Not living in US, but im sure he is 100 times better than Bush. Still doesn't deserve that Nobel tho.
|
All he does is spend and spend and spend. Granted its not all him, but the current trend in American government is digging such a deep hole... I'm ready for another change.
|
On October 10 2010 08:21 Hikko wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:02 Kezzer wrote:
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done. Call me ignorant and unlearned, but how is not settling the war and getting the economy back in shape not failure of policy, even if many things aren't his fault? Not to support Bush, but a lot of things that he failed at just weren't directly his fault either. Still, though, we associate things with our president because the executive really does have THAT much power and influence. From what I have seen, the Health Care bill has done absolutely nothing. He's wrecking the future of the Space program by driving it in a completely different direction. The bailout for the big corporations would have been better spent by just giving every American a share of that money. I am glad that he played along with the damage control for the oil spill, though. Obama was the better option than any chance of Palin being second-in-line for President, but I feel like McCain would have been more effective as President. Just a thought concerning the bill, don't you have to wait to see what it does? I'm pretty sure the reforms don't happen immediately.
|
Is it actually possible for Obama to fix all the problems Bush left behind in the past 2 years? I think alot of people forget about that and go "shit still isn't solved, he must suck"
|
CNN Poll
47% say Obama is a better president than Bush 45% say Bush was a better president
Obama's problem with the public remains the economy. No matter how many accomplishments he has, and there are several big ones like Health Care reform, Financial reform, and drawing down in Iraq/set to in Afghanistan his negatives will continue to rise. When times are bad in the country the leadership always gets the blame, even if there is little they can do to turn things around quickly.
|
Korea (South)11558 Posts
All he has done is spend gross amounts of money pretending to save our economy and then waste all of our time on other issues as the post-crisis recession has lingered on without any responsible response from government. I think "epic fail" is about right.
One Big Ass Mistake America
But what i hate most, is that people blame him for the countries economic situation. it wasn't bush's fault. it wasn't obamas fault. it was the investment bankers, and those that give out loans. we brought on this situation on ourselves. the president can only do so much given the way america is heading.
I just find it funny that people blame him for everything from taxes to less money. The fact that 55,000 jobs at $245,000 /year have been created thanks to obama is a victory in itself.
Obama isn't a bad president, he just came at the wrong time.
|
The economy is out of his hands. The IMF and World Bank, and others can push and pull all they want. Obama can try to create a buffer between the pain but in the end it's going to crumble hard. Look at any impoverished country, Honduras for example the illegal coup that just happened. More than 70% of the population are in poverty (what is the states at right now?) and the government was trying to reform particular infrastructure. The rich & corporate did not like that one bit. He's out now. The coup took place and all the people are forming (collecting from different groups) to oust the ouster. The sad part is that the "election" that took place months after the coup was plagued with intimidation tactics and who knows what else. Hilary Clinton et al. accept the election as legitimate. This reminds me of the silence of the Florida voting fiasco that got George back into office.
|
The expectations that went into the Obama presidency were (and still are to some extent) simply ridiculous. Contrary to public opinion, the President is hardly some god amongst men that has supreme authority to revitalize the economy and fix the woes of the nation...he's a man, guided by a bunch of other men, all who rely on oftentimes contradictory interpretation of facts and is responsible for making policy decisions that have effects that few can ever anticipate.
Is Obama a good president? Sure, he's doing a swell job when you consider the INSANE expectations people had of him and the limitations of his office.
It's always the easy way out when people think, "Problems in the country = President can/has to fix them". Some problems, such as the underlying causes for the economic crash and healthcare, just can't really be "fixed" or "solved" in a few short years, regardless of the man who occupies the highest position of power. There are so many other factors that tie into what a president can or cannot do that must make the job a living hell and these factors also are significant when you consider the rather short-sighted nature of the American voter when it comes to far-reaching policies that go back several administrations.
|
On October 10 2010 08:28 dcberkeley wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:21 Hikko wrote:On October 10 2010 08:02 Kezzer wrote:
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done. Call me ignorant and unlearned, but how is not settling the war and getting the economy back in shape not failure of policy, even if many things aren't his fault? Not to support Bush, but a lot of things that he failed at just weren't directly his fault either. Still, though, we associate things with our president because the executive really does have THAT much power and influence. From what I have seen, the Health Care bill has done absolutely nothing. He's wrecking the future of the Space program by driving it in a completely different direction. The bailout for the big corporations would have been better spent by just giving every American a share of that money. I am glad that he played along with the damage control for the oil spill, though. Obama was the better option than any chance of Palin being second-in-line for President, but I feel like McCain would have been more effective as President. Just a thought concerning the bill, don't you have to wait to see what it does? I'm pretty sure the reforms don't happen immediately.
Exactly. America is doomed to political retardation because the majority of voters have very short attention spans. The first-term GBW tax cuts are just now up for expiration, what does that say about how long it takes for a presidency's actions to take effect? The retarded thing about US politics and how voters respond is they act like you can judge the effectiveness of a presidency during the actual term! It's ludicrous. You can't figure out whether a president was effective or not until at least a few years AFTER he's out of office.
Yes, there are a few ways to look at a President and see how they're doing and you can look at some rare situations and say "The President didn't make a good choice there," but as any historian will tell you, it is extremely rare for a leader of people to be fairly or accurately judged by their contemporaries. This is the conundrum of democratic society, especially one as consumerist and soundbyte-ish as the American one.
We're dealing with the economic blowback of twenty years of corporatism. Is it any wonder that in a scant two years, we haven't been able to solve it? You'd have to be a goddamn magician to pull America out of the mess its made itself in only two years. Not only that, Obama was saddled with TARP before he ever got into office! How the hell are you going to blame someone for a bill that was passed before he was even president? That was a Republican bill! Now you've got spinsters and radio jocks claiming it as part of Obama's portfolio of spending. It's just sad to see people listening to these lies and thinking they're truth.
And then you look at Obama's actual performance with TARP, a program he did not create, and he's gotten back a good chunk of the money, he's pushed through several laws for financial reform, and he's struggled very hard to build consensus for even more reforms. Unfortunately, people within his own damn party turned on him because they were paid off by the bank lobbying groups, and of course the Republicans didn't play ball because they wanted him to look like a lame duck.
It's all pretty ridiculous to me that people don't understand we've had nothing but a Republican agenda over the past 20 years, and all it has netted us is a great deal of unemployment, a few uber rich banking/financial/legal professionals, two costly and unnecessary wars, and a completely fucked up trade deficit and spending deficit.
Clinton, while affiliated Democratic, had many many Republican ideals. He was more of a Republican economically, and Democrat politically, socially, and foreign policy. In terms of economics, we have had 20 years of bullshit trickle-down theory, corporatist, top-down low tax, free market initiatives. And that's what led us to this point. It sure as hell has not been Obama bringing us to this point.
And to the Americans out there who don't think there's something systemically wrong with the way this country runs itself, I don't know what to tell you. The solution is not to vote in someone who will lower spending and be Christian. That's not going to get us anywhere. The problem is a lot bigger than that. It's going to take radical reform, both in the political process (lobbying, subcommittees etc) as well as the economic philosophy, and in major industries like insurance, medical, real estate, banking, and education.
Our country's problems are not something that voting in some smart guy who wants to spend less money is going to fix. I really wish the American majority wasn't that basic in their understanding. Then again, average American knows very little about politics or economics or history, so I don't have much hope.
I know I sound insulting and arrogant here, but that's really not where I'm trying to come from. There are tons of brilliant Americans out there, but the voting results of the last twenty years speak for themselves. This is a game of numbers here. And both parties have been playing off people's fear, selfishness, and ignorance for decades to get themselves in power. There are no angels in this war, only devils.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
What the idiots don't understand is that the economy is not Obama's fault. He's just cleaning up after what Bush SHAT all over the country over the past 8 years. Jesus fucking christ.
|
On October 10 2010 08:44 Elegy wrote: The expectations that went into the Obama presidency were (and still are to some extent) simply ridiculous. I like that perspective. And I am not claiming to be a know it all, but rather I want to ask what the expectations of Bush were when he first got elected and what promises he made (a first glance googling fails me, giving me political trash talk that is not historical but current).
|
On October 10 2010 08:42 CaucasianAsian wrote: All he has done is spend gross amounts of money pretending to save our economy and then waste all of our time on other issues as the post-crisis recession has lingered on without any responsible response from government. I think "epic fail" is about right.
One Big Ass Mistake America
But what i hate most, is that people blame him for the countries economic situation. it wasn't bush's fault. it wasn't obamas fault. it was the investment bankers, and those that give out loans. we brought on this situation on ourselves. the president can only do so much given the way america is heading.
I just find it funny that people blame him for everything from taxes to less money. The fact that 55,000 jobs at $245,000 /year have been created thanks to obama is a victory in itself.
Obama isn't a bad president, he just came at the wrong time.
I don't think you can call Obama's presidency "epic fail" in terms of post-crisis economic management. What do you think he can do? He already tried a stop-gap stimulus bill, which was crucial during the crisis situation, and he's been railed horribly in the media and in polls for it. Could you imagine what the political reaction would be if he tried to create a long-term initiative for government spending to boost job production?
I just don't get it. There are a scant number of tools with which the Presidency can affect the economy on a macro-scale. You can't expect some type of initiative that will pull us out of 17% underemployment/unemployment in two years, without rapidly increasing the deficit. On one hand, people want to villify Obama for spending, on the other, they don't realize that by telling a President to spend no money, they're effectively taking away all the tools he has to effect change. Even if he was the Wayne Gretzky of economics, you can't tell him to go out there and win the game, then take his skates and hockey stick away.
Also, while some might not understand the connection between the Healthcare bill and economics, as the son of business owners, I can tell you that is a HUGE deal to small business. If only they had managed to pass an actual government provider of health care, you know how ridiculous that would have been? Tons of employees work jobs for the benefits. If we could offer health insurance to them at lower rates, that'd allow us to hire maybe 10% more workers. With that increase, we might even be able to expand because people aren't being overworked.
Too bad it was a total failure. Again, not Obama's fault. His own party turned on him. The American public was massively retarded and believed Republican lies about Democratic death squads killing grandma. Then again, perhaps it is Obama's fault because he allowed the Republicans to torpedo his initiative and let the law turn into this bloated pork belly mess. But, I find it hard to blame Obama. He can't control the legislative branch. That's what the separation of powers is all about. The ones who should be blamed for the disaster that was the Healthcare bill is Congress. The Senate royally fucked everything with their corrupt process of garnering votes.
It also shows the weakness at the core of the Democratic party. Here is a party that basically consists of everyone NOT republican. You can't expect to do very well when all you stand for is not them. Which is sad as the former Republican party, which had solidarity and a tangible set of ideals, has since been reduced to Tea Partyists, and other riff-raff who are turning into basically anti-Democrats, or the party of NOT Democrat. Basically, US politics is getting worse and worse.
I think it'll take huge reforms within both political parties, or maybe just toss both of them and replace them with two more contemporary and suitable major parties, based on actual comprehensible ideals, and then actually have some sort of consensus and cooperation in government. At this point, it's become a ridiculous feud as if the two parties were divorced parents fighting for custody of a child, and neither one actually gives two shits about the child.
|
He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up?
|
Our government bodies are too divided to make any real progress in areas remotely controversial. When something goes wrong we blame the other side instead of trying to fix it. I doubt our politics will solve anything over the next 8 or 12 years.
|
On October 10 2010 08:09 orgolove wrote: He's fine. Certainly much better than Bush. And he has probably achieved more legislative breakthroughs than almost any other president in the history of US.
FDR probably led a more legislative breakthroughs. i haven't really studied much us history but FDR opened up a lot of new government sectors.
|
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
|
Is Obama a good President... good question. I'll leave you with a statement.
No country can achieve a government that surpasses the intelligence of the people.
You can quote me on that..
|
He's still alive, that's quite an accomplishment, if you were in his shoes.
|
He was voted in to change things but that doesn't mean every change will please everyone. I think Obama knows this but given his position and the things he can do, he is just battling to roll out the things that he can do and probably have to fight teeth and nails for each one.
You all can bitch as much as you want but at the end of the day, it is what it is.
|
You people expect too much, nobody can change the way things have been going for decades/centurys in just 2 years. Still what he got done is impresive considering the amount of shit thrown at him. He was hyped more that the Dark Knight and it was obvious to any halfwway smart person that exactly this would happen, people are just way to impatient.
|
On October 10 2010 09:05 mardi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:09 orgolove wrote: He's fine. Certainly much better than Bush. And he has probably achieved more legislative breakthroughs than almost any other president in the history of US. FDR probably led a more legislative breakthroughs. i haven't really studied much us history but FDR opened up a lot of new government sectors.
FDR had a lot of stuff to build at the time. Stuff like the CCC could only be created and implemented because there were no major government-supported community infrastructure programs at the time, whereas we live today after having all what they have done in place. How do you urbanize the already very urbanized?
He also had an extremely helpful congress at the time, because EVERYBODY knew that they were fucked if they didn't do something quick, and political parties mattered far less (they still did have a majority but even the republicans voted for their agenda a bit). There were only a couple of bills that didn't pass in the first new deal afaik. And tbh the main reason for America's economic rebound was the start of WWII and the sudden availability of many jobs to many people (arms manufacturing etc.) instead of FDR's new deal bills.
People seem to criticize Obama, thinking shit like "why doesn't he make another CCC so i can have a job etc." but not only is there far less to do in today's sprawling suburbs but the political parties right now are also preventing him from getting any major bills out right now. Political agendas are still very much more powerful than economic recovery in the current political atmosphere.
|
For the situation he was put in, I'd say he's doing a fine job. If anything I'd call myself a Republican, and although I feel Obama was very overhyped when he was running for the presidency he's been doing a good job at keeping America from going into another depression. All in all I can't criticize him, but I don't agree with everything he's been doing so I can't praise him either.
|
On October 10 2010 08:58 StorkHwaiting wrote:Too bad it was a total failure. Again, not Obama's fault. His own party turned on him. The American public was massively retarded and believed Republican lies about Democratic death squads killing grandma. Then again, perhaps it is Obama's fault because he allowed the Republicans to torpedo his initiative and let the law turn into this bloated pork belly mess. But, I find it hard to blame Obama. He can't control the legislative branch. That's what the separation of powers is all about. The ones who should be blamed for the disaster that was the Healthcare bill is Congress. The Senate royally fucked everything with their corrupt process of garnering votes.
Of course it's Obama's fault. It's his job as a politician to sell his proposals to the public and stop his allies from watering them down. I thought it was one area where his lack of experience really showed. He got outplayed by people who knew the game better than him.
|
People who are disgruntled with Obama severely overestimate the power of the presidency in the American government system. A president is more or less a figurehead, and voters usually elect him or her based on his or her personality and ideals. It's not like presidents can do whatever they want. They can't even make laws.
|
He's done a lot of good things, but not nearly enough. I was glad that he vetoed auto-notarization of foreclosures, which helped to halt foreclosure fraud.
You aren't seeing more out of him due to constant Republican filibustering and "moderate" Democrats that are triangulating because of the midterm elections. The supposed supermajority really isn't when enough of your own party switches sides in every legislative vote.
|
On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote: I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** Crying about fox news the one flavor of shit you don't enjoy? they're all shit.
On October 10 2010 08:28 dcberkeley wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:21 Hikko wrote:On October 10 2010 08:02 Kezzer wrote:
But, when I ask them if they really know anything bout his policies or what hes done, they give me blank faces. I also really don't know what he's done. Call me ignorant and unlearned, but how is not settling the war and getting the economy back in shape not failure of policy, even if many things aren't his fault? Not to support Bush, but a lot of things that he failed at just weren't directly his fault either. Still, though, we associate things with our president because the executive really does have THAT much power and influence. From what I have seen, the Health Care bill has done absolutely nothing. He's wrecking the future of the Space program by driving it in a completely different direction. The bailout for the big corporations would have been better spent by just giving every American a share of that money. I am glad that he played along with the damage control for the oil spill, though. Obama was the better option than any chance of Palin being second-in-line for President, but I feel like McCain would have been more effective as President. Just a thought concerning the bill, don't you have to wait to see what it does? I'm pretty sure the reforms don't happen immediately. Who would enact 2000 page bill and then "wait and see" to find out what it does. How do you buy into that train of thought?
We just watched and sat through the government "punishing" the bankers they blame for the housing crash, by giving them billions and billions, in order to "add liquidity to the markets".
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: 1.You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
2.Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
3.Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
4.But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
my translation: 1. fuck that foo be taking my money cause im rich and giving it to the poor! massive hate >
2. profit-oriented businesses are clearly more beneficial for the general public because they don't say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget" instead they say "we need more money because they won't cut our budget"
3. fuck dat ho be making me more taxed!!11! he spending money to keep more public sector union jobs! when it could instead not be taxed from me!!!!11! what a ho
4. OBAMA IS EVIL GONNA GIVE THE COUNTRY TO THE ISLAMIC ARMY BECAUSE HE MUSLIM!!1! (but for some reason he lieks taking care of public sector union who are trying to raise standards of living for some of the most underpaid workerz like teachers o.O wut a fag) BETTER JOIN THE OHIO DEFENSE FORCE
+ Show Spoiler +okay this is too harsh but still you remind me too much of my super right wing rich friend X_x
|
He has a tough job of cleaning up our last president's mess and yet people expect him to offer instant change. He can't undo 8 years of damage that quickly.
|
On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote: I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens).
Your second point is an opinion.
You follow this with more opinions.
Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified.
And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them.
It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop.
|
On October 10 2010 09:38 Leviathen1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote: I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors
in many countries (south korea for an example) doctors are paid less than their american counterparts but the job itself (being a doctor) is still highly valued and the field had many new people joining every year
for some people its the status, many others really want to help people out, etc. etc. the field won't die out just because the paycheck is cut a bit.
|
On October 10 2010 08:51 orgolove wrote: What the idiots don't understand is that the economy is not Obama's fault. He's just cleaning up after what Bush SHAT all over the country over the past 8 years. Jesus fucking christ.
The thing is, he's not cleaning up the mess, he's taking another shit on top of Bush's shit.
Continuing the wars, even more government spending, continuing warrantless wiretapping and expanding it, giving citizens fewer and fewer rights (see the recent FBI threads), backing up Wall St companies over ordinary people, unemployment constantly rising, etc.
He's just like Bush but even worse, I don't get why people like him.
|
On October 10 2010 09:40 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you. Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens). Your second point is an opinion. You follow this with more opinions. Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified. And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them. It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop.
You actually state that the US government has infinite money, and then turn around and complain about "drivel".
|
On October 10 2010 09:41 Navi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:38 Leviathen1 wrote:On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote: I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors in many countries (south korea for an example) doctors are paid less than their american counterparts but the job itself (being a doctor) is still highly valued and the field had many new people joining every year for some people its the status, many others really want to help people out, etc. etc. the field won't die out just because the paycheck is cut a bit.
Half the problem for doctors is that they artificially make the requirements to become a doctor severe, to LIMIT the number of doctors that can practice medicine in the USA. This isn't to increase the quality of health care. This is done purely as a protectionist practice to preserve the high salaries of doctors and limit the competition within the medical labor market.
Therefore, doctors get very high salaries, compete intensely for residencies, and the vast majority of people end up nurses, getting paid far less to do a majority of the work. This is no disrespect to doctors. They more than earn their stripes. But it's rubbish to say that if you lowered the earnings of doctors, you'd give them same work for less pay.
The answer is a composite, not a one-shot. There needs to be tort reform to lower the occupational hazards and financial liability of being a doctor. This then lowers the cost of their insurance coverage, aka their cost of doing business. Lower costs means higher profit. See that? Same work, higher pay for doctors. Then you take a look at how much money doctors have to spend just to process claims for health insurance to get paid for the work they did, and again, you see that the bulk of profits are being swallowed up by insurance companies and both the doctors and the patients lose.
If you lowered the barriers to entry for doctors (to a reasonable degree), offered better student loans specifically for medical students, reformed the medical insurance industry, and allowed tort reforms, I'm pretty damn sure you could end up with a medical industry that operated more efficiently, costed less to patients, and took some of the workload OFF doctors while preserving their salary rates. Win-win situation for everyone, EXCEPT the insurance industries, who quite honestly are a government implemented racket. If Republicans wanted to bitch about too much government and hate on government institutions, they should be going after the insurance industry (which is mandated and propagated by the US gov't) and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
|
On October 10 2010 09:49 omnigol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:40 StorkHwaiting wrote:On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you. Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens). Your second point is an opinion. You follow this with more opinions. Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified. And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them. It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop. You actually state that the US government has infinite money, and then turn around and complain about "drivel".
No. I didn't. I said infinite dollars. There's a difference. Money is a loose term that doesn't mean anything. US dollars is a specific term and yes, the USA has the ability to print an unlimited amount of those. Will they do so? No, because of inflation. But if Obama wanted to print $100 billion over the next two years, I'm pretty confident the dollar would not go into hyperinflation. Would it be a good thing? Not really. But it's well within the ability of the gov't.
I can agree with the criticisms of Jalstar, Omnigol, and Navi though. You guys bring up cogent points with which to criticize Obama.
|
On October 10 2010 09:01 Tadzio wrote: He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up?
Yes please.
The fact is, it is possible to cut spending. We're wasting billions upon billions in other countries dealing with other people's problems. Its money that a.) we don't have, and b.) could be much better spent here.
I'm tired of being the world's police. Ideologically I'm pretty conservative, but I just don't see why we need to have more troops deployed abroad than we have here at home. Bring everybody back, imo. If someone wants to fuck with us, then we can retaliate. The money going into funding our military abroad could just as easily be spent bettering our military technology and infrastructure so that when we do have to fight, we're much better equipped to do so.
The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy. That's exactly what an income tax does. We need to move to a consumption tax. That way our government collects money on what people spend, encouraging the acquisition of money.
You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue.
What the fuck is with the way we penalize and enforce drug laws? How much money is WASTED by housing inmates for non violent crimes. This is RETARDED!
And what's with our prison system in general? It doesn't encourage rehabilitation. It forces inmates to seek protection deeper within criminal organization. Hey Bob, I'm going to send you to jail for smoking weed. Oh yea, while you're in there you have to befriend murderers and sociopaths if you don't wanna' get raped. And remember, we expect you to be a more productive American citizen when you get out!
What a joke.
And the thing that steams me up the most? Career fucking politicians. Especially the right wingers who talk about adhering to the virtues of our founders. Guess what, guys? Our founders weren't career politicians. They were successful business owners, and wealthy intellectuals who understood that public service meant doing what you can for your country, and then getting out before the whole thing becomes corrupt and sour.
I know I'm not alone in my thinking, and I can't fucking wait to vote for someone with a similar ideology.
|
thats gonna be a really long wait
|
He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor.
The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable.
You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often.
As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works...
|
On October 10 2010 09:01 Tadzio wrote: He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up? TL political party inc?
day[9] for pres?
|
thedeadhaji
39473 Posts
The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote: Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
Well-put imo.
On October 10 2010 09:19 Suspense wrote: Is Obama a good President... good question. I'll leave you with a statement.
No country can achieve a government that surpasses the intelligence of the people.
You can quote me on that..
lol TT_TT
|
i don't know much about obama and politics, but i do know that as soon as someone becomes president they will instantly be hated more than before. So people hating the president doesn't seem like an indicator to how well they are doing to me.
|
Well-put imo. How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it.
I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening.
|
Obama isn't perfect as some have pointed out and he isn't really the guy doing everything as many more have noted. I don't care if you guys think I am bleeding heart librul, but I think that all of the lists of things he hasn't done are kinda overdone. Just because he want's things one way doesn't mean they will happen just because he is the president. I know you guys will tear this down, but here is a quick list of things he has done, or are being acted out (quick list...sorry).
Appointed 2 Supreme Justices Appointed people to posts in a bipartisan fashion (plenty of old Bush appointees) stimulus bill cash for clunkers improved child's health insurance The Big health care bill closing Guantanamo Bay Time lines for withdrawal for both Iraq and Afghanistan (and sent more troops as requested and has since withdrawn many) Bank Bailouts Banned Harsh Interrogation Stem Cell research can now be gov. funded Let Cali make those emissions standards Overturned Bush's choice of not supporting family centers overseas Released Torture memos Started spending money to improve relations with the Middle east Is helping renew middle east peace talks Helped charter schools Renewed many Bush surveillance laws Moving to end Don't ask Don't tell extended jobless benefits Created a bill to improve schools nationwide Is trying to extend tax cuts to everyone but the richest 1% Auto Industry Bailouts
While many point and say that you can't spend your way out of a depression, most of the money hasn't even been spent yet. In addition, the CBO (see Non-Partisan) claims the stimulus saved or created over 1 million jobs. People say that he is increasing government and needs to help the private sector. Last month, jobs were lost, but most came from government layoffs.
Many of the things he has done are down right conservative while other things are very liberal, so before you all talk about how much he Hasn't done, give the guy a sec and at least give him credit for what he has done.
|
thedeadhaji
39473 Posts
On October 10 2010 10:37 Djzapz wrote:How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it. I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening.
Personally, I think the vast majority of the population won't independantly realize that,
skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
|
On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. Show nested quote +The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. Show nested quote +You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works...
Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too.
Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact.
That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT.
Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation".
How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing?
People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn.
As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day.
As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue.
|
On October 10 2010 10:47 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:37 Djzapz wrote:Well-put imo. How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it. I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening. Personally, I think the vast majority of the population won't independantly realize that, Show nested quote + skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election I don't know about the "vast majority" part but I agree. However, we can't do much more than vote for the party which we believe will be the best. Their eloquence is a good thing as it gets them elected - their good ideas don't, which is sad. The fact that McCain got any votes at all after the insane stuff he and Palin said is just astounding to me. (To be truthful I'm not astounded at all, I don't really have much faith in humanity at this point.)
As for what we should look for before we vote, it's not always obvious. Some people value experience - and I agree. However, if someone's experience is limited to years upon years of actively f***ing up the country (and by extension, everyone on earth), then perhaps an unexperienced crew would end up causing less damage.
|
On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue. Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing, like you said. But it means that you can't just put it into place and hope it works. If you try and make it happen overnight, it'll crash horribly. If you slowly switch over to it, chances are it'll fail horribly and by the time you switch back (if it's even possible), the damage will have been done. As for you saying that the concept of democracy was laughed at at some point, I don't believe it's so true. It wasn't used because controlling people is convenient. Maybe the kings laughed at it because they believed that they were Kings because "God" put them there.
As for VAT's, they also come with income tax. If you're not talking about basically abolishing income taxes, we can talk. However, try to understand that in a country like the US where there are EXTREMELY RICH people, if you don't make them pay more, then the lower and middle class end up paying a lot more, so they consume a lot less. Of course this is a generalization. To me, freedom is very important. Yes, I understand why graduated taxes may be considered to be "unfair". However, I believe that it's a large portion of why the US economy has been so powerful. For a long time, the highest tax bracket for people with extremely high incomes was 99%, I believe. I'm not saying it should still be like that. It would be absurd and would mess everything up, but I just wanted to point it out.
As for increasing taxes on businesses, it has its place - but I wouldn't have done it right now.
|
On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue.
We do have consumption tax in the form of sales tax, but again it's not 100%. Would be interesting to see how that'd play out though. I'm not against the idea.
One obstacle I see off the top of my head though, is that wouldn't it be difficult to gauge how much someone is actually spending? What if someone bought stuff, but used his girlfriend's name to get it etc. A lot of evasion could occur by spreading the consumption on paper, couldn't it?
|
On October 10 2010 11:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue. We do have consumption tax in the form of sales tax, but again it's not 100%. Would be interesting to see how that'd play out though. I'm not against the idea. One obstacle I see off the top of my head though, is that wouldn't it be difficult to gauge how much someone is actually spending? What if someone bought stuff, but used his girlfriend's name to get it etc. A lot of evasion could occur by spreading the consumption on paper, couldn't it? The transition would have to be be slow and tax would probably be collected by the seller like it currently is. I don't believe it would work. One of the reasons is that government finances would be even more affected in times of recession as taxes are directly attached to the amount of stuff that's sold.
|
Short answer? No, he's not, but he was a better choice than what the Republicans fielded that year.
I'm allergic to Creationists, I wish the GOP would stop running them.
|
On October 10 2010 12:14 Hinanawi wrote: Short answer? No, he's not, but he was a better choice than what the Republicans fielded that year.
I'm allergic to Creationists, I wish the GOP would stop running them.
Amen. There's a place for religion: Church. Not the hill.
|
It actually is pretty interesting how the Obamamania has died down.
I was never for him, due to his views on abortion, the economy and healthcare and I still am not.
MrBitter: So you're saying your religion has to stay in private, that it can't influence your views? Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion.
|
I like how the common argument these days is "Obama isn't doing good, but he can't handle fixing the entire country while FOX News and the republicans oppose everything he does." and "He's still better than Bush and McCain."
Cmon guys... quit making damn excuses for the man. Every president ever faces opposition from media and the opposing party. That's called politics. Presidents still have success even with those obstacles. You cannot possibly believe that the Republicans would simply let Obama do whatever he wanted because he won the election. That's naive and illogical.
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
He also spent a lot and really botched the financial meltdown at the end of his presidency. The bailouts were a disastrous decision. His administration had to handle a complete failure in Katrina, and that was an ugly situation all around. However, that was much more of a local/state failure than a Federal faiure.
As for Obama being the better choice than his running mate - well that's speculation and unless you're a psychic, time traveler, or Miss Cleo you have no way of knowing if that's true.
The important thing more than anything is that Obama is doing a bad job. There is no way to argue that he's not.
|
Day to day life never really changes much with each new President. They all maintain the status quo once they get in there. Obama's problem is that he promised the world and people were gullible enough to believe him so now they are disappointed.
|
Heh, the economic crisis isn't a result of Bush (despite all the bad stuff he did anyway). It is because of the greedy banks and their loans which started in the late 90s.
|
On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote: Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. =l... sanity please?
On October 10 2010 13:18 phant wrote: Heh, the economic crisis isn't a result of Bush (despite all the bad stuff he did anyway). It is because of the greedy banks and their loans which started in the late 90s. And when were regulations loosened? There you go.
On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: I was never for him, due to his views on abortion, the economy and healthcare and I still am not. You believe that YOU should be allowed to decide if a woman can get aborted and she shouldn't make that decision for herself? You think healthcare should be run like a business? And for the economy part I'll let that slip because it's just too easy x_x
Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion. Most people's morals and ethics are NOT formed by their religion. If that were the case, it would be horrible. Lots of people would get stoned to death all the time, amongst many other horrible things.
|
On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: It actually is pretty interesting how the Obamamania has died down.
I was never for him, due to his views on abortion, the economy and healthcare and I still am not.
MrBitter: So you're saying your religion has to stay in private, that it can't influence your views? Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that using your religion as a platform is retarded. People shouldn't be elected because of their faith. They should be elected because of their ability to lead a country.
|
On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion.
Scandinavian countries are full of atheists and they have much lower crime rates and higher standards of life than the U.S., which is full of Christians.
But more to the point of why it would matter for a candidate, can you understand why someone might feel uncomfortable with a President like Palin who might end up thinking like this?:
- Jesus will save everyone before any sort of world-wrecking event would happen anyway, so no need to worry about silly stuff like biological weapons.
- Half-life of 60 million years, you say? Haha, no way, the Earth's only 6,000 years old so that can't be true! Drop the nukes.
- Israel went crazy and is slaughtering innocents? No no, we can't step in, they're God's chosen people! The Bible says so!
- Worry about the environment? But Jesus gave us the Earth to do what we wish to, and besides he'll come back and save us before we run out of oil anyway, lol!
|
Here's a general outline of how presedencies go. 1. He gets elected, and theres a lot of hype. 2. After 6 months, he hasn't done crap, people, ask for more time 3. A year or 2 pas, people start to get pissed 4. Relection time, people say give him more time 5. Regret 6. All over again
|
Obama isn't an amazing president. Hell of a lot better than Bush, but he hasn't used his voodoo powers to fix everything yet when people expect him to.
|
You are not going to get any unbiased answers anywhere, so, good luck weeding through both sides for the truth.
|
I think he is much better than Bush, in many aspects.
Some people claim that Obama is all for showmanship; this may be true. But at least he still shows off better than Bush. In fact, I feel that the international reputation of US has improved since Obama was elected.
|
To the people saying a President is powerless and can't do anything, that's completely untrue. Presidents have a lot of power in terms of setting up and funding federal programs, global initiatives, trade agreements, national standards, etc. They are very influential. What a president cannot do is change the basic fundamentals of a country within 2 years. And that is what people seem to expect Obama capable of doing.
I think it's rather pointless for people to join a political discussion to just say politics are useless and nothing ever changes, though. Not only is it completely wrong, it's just plain rude. If you don't care for the topic, don't join in.
|
"I think many Americans love arguing just for the sake of argument. That, or they are led to think in extremely biased and un-objective ways. People nowadays are segregated into numerous groups because of this.
The question of "is Obama a good president" will never have an answer that's good enough for the majority of American citizens. Unless some significant and shocking events take place (i.e. major terrorist attacks, sex scandals, national disasters), there are always going to be masses of people who think he's a giant fuckhead, and there are are always going to be people who thinks he's a divine god.
Sadly, these kinds of strongly conflicting views exist throughout American society. All the in-fighting, mis-informed bickering, and general chest-beating are creating unnecessary divides amongst Americans. Sure, you could say that all this conflict is part of a modern democratic system, but when people fight to the point of tearing the system apart, you know things have gone too far."
-- Anonymous reply
|
On October 10 2010 13:38 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion. Scandinavian countries are full of atheists and they have much lower crime rates and higher standards of life than the U.S., which is full of Christians.
And Japan has absolutely no Christians and it's one of the safest countries on the planet while Brazil has the second highest proportion of Christians in the world and that place has horrific crime and social problems.
Also, morals are not formed by religion, religion only gives you ethics. Ethics are a subjective interpretation of morals.
Edit: This point has also been brought up a few times in various articles that I've read and since I'm a moron, I'd like to watch people here fight about it: Obama raised the taxes on the richest 2% percent of the population by, I believe, 3% and when Eisenhower was in office, it was raised to 90-something percent and things were fine. What is so radically different that we can't raise their taxes again?
|
Obama is doing a very very good job in these hard times with a broken economy and many other problems. And most important: he is a intelligent person you can trust, opposed to many other ex-presidents in the states. I doubt any other president would have done better in the time since Obamas election. But will the americans realize this fact? I don' think so - Sarah Palin incoming :D
|
On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: It actually is pretty interesting how the Obamamania has died down.
I was never for him, due to his views on abortion, the economy and healthcare and I still am not.
MrBitter: So you're saying your religion has to stay in private, that it can't influence your views? Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion.
No, they are not. Only if you are a fundamentalist taking a literal reading of your chosen religious text (beware of translation/edition variances, though; better brush up on your ancient Hebrew) can you make that statement for yourself. If you are any other kind of theist, you pick and choose which religious commands to follow and which to discard.
|
To me this is an existential problem by the way. I don't believe this is the worst it's going to get. It's serious.
|
On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: It actually is pretty interesting how the Obamamania has died down.
I was never for him, due to his views on abortion, the economy and healthcare and I still am not.
MrBitter: So you're saying your religion has to stay in private, that it can't influence your views? Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion.
Is that fact? Where are you sources?
|
Obama is still quite the politician. Quite a capable speaker and he holds very rational moderate views. It's worth nothing the quality of the best and brightest he recalled to washington initially. His economic team was the whose who of the best.
The democratic congress though still fails to inspire anyone and the Republicans... I can litterally call most of the modern republican positions wrong. People can have different values and thus there can be multiple valid opinions, but Republicans as a rule seem to be bereft of both facts and respect for scientific methodology. God help us if they actually believe the drivel they are passing off as economic policy.
Morons.
Obama has faced amazingly disciplined resistance by the Republican party aided by "moderate" dems. He made the mistake of compromising which meant that his bills were neither here nor there and weren't the best. The health care bill wasn't bold enough to include the necessary cost cutting.
The greatness of our nation cannot be protect when Sarah Palin is considered a legitimate VP candidate. Obama isn't jesus, but if you give him a fair shake his policies are generally emminently reasonable and sensible. Right now I would say he's rather kennedyesque(not a compliment).
This is the problem with Universal franchise: + Show Spoiler +On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
Yeah I wanted to gouge my eyes out after reading that too. Actually perhaps I can enlighten this poor soul.
+ Show Spoiler + 1) Read an economic text book. Provide a solution to the paradox of thrift. Reconcile claims that tax cuts have some multiplier effect with emperical evidence of the strength of other multipliers like public spending.
No seriously. Get a basic understanding of economics.
2) That's a cute line you've got there about healthcare. Healthcare cost inflation has spiked dramatically in the past 30 years since the creation of for profit insurers, how would the market "fix itself"? Or I guess rather how much healthcare should americans have access to. Should we cut medicare and medicaid also while we're at it? Do we care about adverse selection and pre-existing conditions?
3) Do you care about the deficit or not? You clearly believe global warming is a fiction, so it's not point talking to you about Pigou and other such theories.
4) Public sector unions; You're not even going to give him credit for his education reforms?
Try reading/watching something different from Fox. How about the Economist?
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you.
Dude you are so intelligent, what school did you attend? I want to send my kids there. Trying to destroy the country? If helping the poor is destroying America, let's destroy this bitch! Besides why spend billions and billions on fixing our own country when we can spend it on bombing arabs amirite
|
On October 10 2010 10:29 thedeadhaji wrote: The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
Actually, being a businessman has no bearing on whether or not you will do well in politics because business != politics. Businesspeople with the "get shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness" are probably used to the ability to hire and fire at will, no can do in politics. Most of the time you have to work with what you've got and make it work. Also many times if you want to implement stuff its not a question of doing things in a timely, efficient manner, its about selling the idea to the American public and getting their senators to vote for it. You can't simply be more efficient or buy out your opponents to win, you've got to make people believe what you're doing is what's good. Public image is super important, if you're caught cheating on your wife as a businessman no one cares, if you're caught as an appointed employee you will get lambasted and your work will be impossible to accomplish. For some reason people have this idea that businesspeople are the end all be all of good politicians but the two professions and what is required of each are completely different.
Businesspeople aren't even historically that great as politicians. Some have done well but many have been catastrophic failures. Silvio Berlusconi? Third richest man in Italy. How's Italy doing? Yeah you gotta dig pretty far back to find anything positive. What about Donald Rumsfeld? Not a bad businessman, but everyone thinks of him as the guy that failed two wars. Corruption also comes hand in hand with businessmen come politicians. Cheney/Haliburton? Russia?
Unfortunately for Obama people have this idea that if you're not surrounded by businessmen you're going to be a slow ineffecient government so he's hiring businesspeople to his new economic team.
|
On October 10 2010 13:38 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 12:47 Belegorm wrote: Most people's morals and ethics are formed by their religion. Scandinavian countries are full of atheists and they have much lower crime rates and higher standards of life than the U.S., which is full of Christians.
Honestly, this is probably more due to how freaking cold is it is there. I'd rather murder someone when I don't have to hike through 12 feet of snow.
|
Interesting trend in this thread: People who attack Obama tend to have limited knowledge of their views and keep their attacks to personality based, unfounded claims, while people defending Obama tend to try to rationalize the limitations that a president can have on the nation, and actually tend to have knowledge about fundamental properties of economics and politics.
Obama may not be the greatest president, but really, he's pretty decent in my book. To keep it simple, he was handed one of the worst situations our country has been in since FDR (the great recession being the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and could have been possibly worse if not for the bailout), and has one of the least supportive congresses considering he has a majority rule (politicians playing against the president in effort to avoid the incumbent cleaning out that will occur soon... :/). You guys make it seem like Obama has pocket aces on the flop and lost out to a 7 - 2 off suit, when in reality its the other way around.
|
On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote: Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
Amen to this.
Folks need to pay more attention to actions (actually read up on the history of the person) and less to words.
There are plenty of people that can make you like them if you just hear 10 minute segments that they prearranged. These same people are not necessary the folks you want leading your country. Their personal history tells more of what they would be like as a leader than any amount of political-psychobabble.
Unfortunately Obama's history is very pro-union/big government and it shows in his actions today.
|
On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?.....
|
On October 11 2010 04:21 VonLego wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote: Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election Amen to this. Folks need to pay more attention to actions (actually read up on the history of the person) and less to words. There are plenty of people that can make you like them if you just hear 10 minute segments that they prearranged. These same people are not necessary the folks you want leading your country. Their personal history tells more of what they would be like as a leader than any amount of political-psychobabble. Unfortunately Obama's history is very pro-union/big government and it shows in his actions today. And he never hid that he was from the left...
|
@ Von
Ok lets deal with this big government crap. You're in a recession and the Fed reserve is throwing everything and the kitchen sink. The majority of modern theory supports a sizeable fiscal stimulus twice teh size of what was presented (and in the context of state governments engaging in austerity programs).
The monopsony and the distortions in the healthcare market. Ofc. There is the fundamental arguement of how much healthcare should every american have access to, but I seems that arguement is just government brings inefficiency rar rar rar.
Also where the hell were you folks when the PoS that is medicare part D came into existence?
|
On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?.....
Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet.
You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though.
That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist.
I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
Hats off to this guy.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same? I haven't seen much logic. You made statements based on your perception. Your idea of a President's tasks is pretty bad - but even if you had it right, it still wouldn't be called logic.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote: That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist.
I'm not very good with politics but I'd like to ask some sincere questions.
What is this "liberal agenda" you speak of, and why do you view it as a bad thing? Disregarding how you feel about the presidential role.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same? After this post, i'm returning to my original concept of avoiding all political and economic threads on TL. I'm not going to comment on your opinion much else but suggesting your logic is somewhat broken - in that you blindly cling to the constitution (as well as calling things "unconstitutional" when they really are not - which is humorous since Bush did many "unconstitutional" acts as well) as if it is infallible and that it could never be abused under any circumstances, which is just plain wrong. Edit: also, you imply that stepping out of bounds of the constitution MUST be bad. I disagree with that train of baseless logic as well.
|
On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote: You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others Quit reading there. I love it when people display a fundamental lack of reality right away so you can disregard the rest.
Borrowing money on a bond market does not equal taking money from one party through taxes and spending it on another. Tax revenues are at a fairly historic (in modern terms)low of 15% of GDP.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2qixm4m.png
Do you, by any chance, visit Mises.org or listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis? That would go a long way in explaining the divergence from reality.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same? That wasn't a counter-argument. It was a statement, because I honestly couldn't believe you just typed that. As in I seriously thought you were a troll, that kind of thing.
Nowhere in your post did you cite information nor argue in a logical manner. You basically stated things and then explained that you use reason & logic to support them.
Your post was nothing, but a mini tirade against the president for supposedly pushing the "Liberal Agenda", which may I add I never hear outside Fox News. While, praising Bush for violating international and federal law for the sake of internal security.
|
On October 11 2010 01:19 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:29 thedeadhaji wrote: The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
Actually, being a businessman has no bearing on whether or not you will do well in politics because business != politics. Businesspeople with the "get shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness" are probably used to the ability to hire and fire at will, no can do in politics. Most of the time you have to work with what you've got and make it work. Also many times if you want to implement stuff its not a question of doing things in a timely, efficient manner, its about selling the idea to the American public and getting their senators to vote for it. You can't simply be more efficient or buy out your opponents to win, you've got to make people believe what you're doing is what's good. Public image is super important, if you're caught cheating on your wife as a businessman no one cares, if you're caught as an appointed employee you will get lambasted and your work will be impossible to accomplish. For some reason people have this idea that businesspeople are the end all be all of good politicians but the two professions and what is required of each are completely different. Businesspeople aren't even historically that great as politicians. Some have done well but many have been catastrophic failures. Silvio Berlusconi? Third richest man in Italy. How's Italy doing? Yeah you gotta dig pretty far back to find anything positive. What about Donald Rumsfeld? Not a bad businessman, but everyone thinks of him as the guy that failed two wars. Corruption also comes hand in hand with businessmen come politicians. Cheney/Haliburton? Russia? Unfortunately for Obama people have this idea that if you're not surrounded by businessmen you're going to be a slow ineffecient government so he's hiring businesspeople to his new economic team.
By Haji's logic, his candidate in the last election would have been Mitt Romney.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
So you think the primary job of the President is to be the nation's general. Wow. Conservatives are really starting to go off the deep end...
You're not really using reason and logic. It's more like you gave an opinion on what you think the President should do, then talked about how America has a strong central gov't, gave an opinion on the Bush presidency, then shared some additional paranoid opinions about Obama's presidency.
None of this is reason or logic, it's purely opinion. How you don't see this is beyond me.
And from what I'm getting out of your post, you basically thing we should return to a confederate system, in which the national government provides military protection and almost nothing else. Is that what you're saying is in the constitution?
I think it's kind of sad that Republicans consistently try to justify rank selfishness by claiming taxes are "unfair" and "unjust." Why don't people just pack up and go live on a deserted island on their own, where they can profit off their "own work" and nobody takes anything from them. It seems these kinds of Republican tenets have completely forgotten the basis of human civilization.
|
United States238 Posts
I think people expected way too much from him during and after the campaign with so many things that were wrong in the country for him to fix at the time.
|
Obama is an alright president. I wish he could be more liberal and attack the Republican Party more but lets face the Democrats a little pussies.
Health Care Reform didn't reform anything honestly. Yeah now they can't deny you coverage for having a preexisting conditions but it didn't stop the health insurance companies from sky rocketing premiums. Who could have seen that coming amirite? And this year the insurance companies have to let kids with preexisting conditions get health insurances and you know what the companies did? they cut all children from health insurance so they don't have to cover the kids with preexisting conditions. And he didn't even fight for the Public Option SERIOUSLY that was the one thing that would get America closer to a Universal Health Care and stop the insurance companies from sucking up every single dollar.
The Financial Reform sucked as well. It was PROVEN that stimulus money slow downed the recession but because of the attacks from the right Obama stop doing stimulus spending. Now with the Bush Tax Cuts he stalled the vote till after the Nov. elections WTF? NO THE WEALTHEST AMERICANS DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT. THEY NEED TO PAY MORE. TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WILL NOT CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA THEY WILL MAKE JOBS OVER SEAS!! And he has the people responsible for the bailouts and the financial crisis in his administration and he isn't getting rid of them of course. Oh and they never stopped the problem at the core. Derivative trading remains untouched so later in the future the same problem will occur.
Bush was a HORRID PRESIDENT. I can understand the war in Afghanistan but really do we need to send THOUSANDS of troops there to fight what 20-50 Taliban? And did we have to go to war with Iraq when we already had a war. There were no evidence that Iraq was helping Al-Queda and there was no evidence that Iraq had or in the process of making nukes in any way but who cares about evidence?
If the Republicans really cared about the deficit they would stop the two wars, tax the rich, and have more stimulus spending. But they won't why cause they are all in it to protect the rich who pays for their campaign ads and when they retire they can work for those companies as lobbyists and the Democrats and Obama are to much of a pussy to call them out and most of them are paying the same game.
Nothing has changed in Washington and nothing would have changed if McCain was president either, it probably would be worse if McCain was president.
|
Yo. I really couldnt be bothered to follow news of America since the election but can any of you Americans tell me if your personal situation has been improved since the previous president? Like you actually have access to new services or lost them etc.
It seems like most of this discussion is about the moral fabric of leaders rather than what they have done.
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 04:42 Mickey wrote:On October 10 2010 12:51 Floophead_III wrote:
As for comparing him to Bush:
Personally, I think Bush was an incredible president and a great man. I think he had some failed policies and blunders too. But, he did the 1 thing he needed to do - protect America - and he did it damn well. He united Americans in a moment of fragility and we've been safe ever since. There have been numerous plots and potential attacks averted because he put focus on strengthening national security and brought the war on terror back onto their soil.
You can't be serious?..... Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. You do realize the primary function of the President is to serve as commander-in-chief and to protect America, right? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President should help everyone by giving away gov't money or make sure every person is taken care of though. That being said, the presidency is massively, ridiculously strong compared to what the founders anticipated. The Presidency has expanded wildly beyond what the constitution enumerates. Bush certainly bent a few rules with regards to national security, but at least he was doing so in order to carry out a constitutional duty. Obama is just trying to use his power to serve a liberal agenda that, constitutionally speaking, he does not have a duty to pursue. The fact is, I'd rather him just do his damn job instead of try to be an idealist. I stand by everything I say with regards to politics, and I use reason and logic to back up my statements. Can you say the same?
I'm sorry but I don't see one ounce of "reasoning" or "logic". Also afaik Bush stretched the reach of presidential powers quite far, so why don't you hate him also? Or you just base your hate of politicians based on their affiliation?
|
Most of the big spending is lap over from the prior administration. The perception that there have been huge increases in government spending are false in my opinion
Ny times article outlining the same point
Additionally 15 years ago Japan dealt with the exact same market crisis we are facing now. I think it would be wise to copy their solution
Interview with Japanese Economist
[edit] grammar [edit]
|
On October 11 2010 10:19 Floophead_III wrote:
Good counter argument there. Of course I'm serious. My apologies for being one of the thinking Americans and one of the few people on this forum who aren't afraid to voice a conservative viewpoint on the internet. Quick side note here. How dare you insinuate that everyone who dislikes Bush isn't a "thinking American." I wrote a long reply to you, and can retype it if you like, but I feel this statement sums up why arguing is pointless. You sincerely believe that everyone who is against Bush, and by proxy, in favor of Obama, isn't thinking for themselves.
Also, this is excellent! Thank you very much for linking it: Interview with Japanese Economist
|
I feel that it is my patriotic duty to remain disinterested in politics, and to keep myself morally clear of the dirty business.
That being said, Obama has been doing a job of being the commander and chief, and that is much harder than a lot of jobs that people do in America. Some people sit around all day collecting welfare checks as a profession. I think that as far as Obama is concerned, the presidential office is maintaining the dignity of being a more stately position than that of the professional welfare beneficiary.
On the other hand, there are some other crazy jobs, like mining for coal, which might be considered more taxing than being President. But these other jobs do not offer as much pay or recognition. So in this sense, Obama is in a pretty good position, relatively. He appears on television regularly, and sees his family often, unlike undercover agents embedded in Mexico's drug cartels.
So I guess as far as bad and good are measured, the office of President is definitely on the good side, and since Obama is the acting president, it is argued by me that Obama is good.
|
Obama took the oath of office at a time when the country was in a total shitshow. For a pro-business guy in a pro-business country, economic downfall for the small business and unfavorable aggregates for big business meant that he was facing a challenge of virtually impossible proportions. He was expected by his supporters to solve these problems. It was an impossible expectation. He was expected by those who were more conservative than those who elected him to fail and present the country with a rigged ballet in '12. Those people had a more realistic appraisal. I just wanted to get this out of the way since I think people must be talking politics in this thread (I don't like posting without reading at least a percentage of the thread, but I'm pretty sure this is a shitshow).
As to my own opinion, I think that he has done an admirable job given the situation he was presented with. You can't stop a multi-front international war with an election. If you could it would be a horrible outcome. You can't stop economic crisis with an election since there is essentially an ongoing arms race between speculators and regulators, which is a systematic problem that passable policy has no influence on. I think that what his supporters elected him for, he has pretty much done. I don't think they could expect more.
Getting, I suppose, closer to my own opinion, he is pretty much a normal president, fulfilling party and state obligations with the grace of a wealthy person. Passing policy to please his supporters and be realistic given the persistent limitations on policymaking in the US. He is nothing special.
I didn't vote for him. I haven't voted for any president because I see their actions reflecting on me. I think that people who voted for Obama, who don't hold that moral tie to their democratic decision, should probably be happy about him. If I voted, I'd be guilty. That's why I'm the politics major who never voted.
Basically, a good person can't be put in charge of a bad country. I love a lot of things about the US, from side to side, top to bottom, but its political mindset is disgusting and the failures of its public education have been becoming apparent year after year until we have tea party nominations. The place is fucked to me right now. If I can help it, I'm never moving back.
EDIT: (Ok, that turned into a shit rant. It's appropriate for this thread though, so I'm posting it. I'm going to poke around in this thread and see if it's appropriate.) (Swift update: The thread is full of party-line and otherwise bad posts, so I think this isn't too bad.)
Also, I want to mention that Japanese government issue. Their bubble was a smaller thing that popped earlier. Their policies may have been good, but the state really backs people here up. That's something that they just do. They're dealing with that problem right now with the issues caused by a strong yen, which are very serious.
The main difference is a severe difference in the sociopolitical climate. The Japanese government has wholly different capabilities, administratively and practically, than the American government.
|
|
|
|